FINAL REPORT...The presentation of the firm that was awarded the contract to undertake the survey,...

1

FINAL REPORT

Content

Information Sheet / linkIntroduction IntroductionMethodology MethodologySummary Summary1. Number of employees 1. Number of employees2. Number of branches 2. Number of branches3. Age groups 3. Age groups4. Level of education 4. Level of education5. Full-time / part-time contract 5. Full- or part-time6. Permanent / non-permanent contract 6. Temp or permanent7. Gender 7. Gender8. Level of hierarchy 8. Level of hierarchy 9. Pay structure (fix / variable pay) 9. Pay structure10. Reasons for job losses 10. Reasons for job losses11. Ranking of reasons for Internal Restructuring (ESP) 11. Ranking of Reasons12. Reasons for restructuring (ESP) 12. Reasons for Restructuring13. Changes in job profiles 1 13. Changes in job profiles 114. Changes in job profiles 2 (ESP) 14. Changes in job profiles 2

Sources SourcesDefinitions Definitions

AnnexesAnnex 1: Final Presentation Kantar Live at 28 June 2018Annex 2: (ISCO-08) - Part II and ISCED ClassificationAnnex 3: Questionnaires

Back to content

Introduction

Final Report: Impact of Regulation on Employment in the Banking Industry - Pillar IAgreement Number: VS/2016/0423

Since 2007 many national and European regulations and a general trend towards austerity have impacted the banking sector across the EU28.There is a common belief among the EU social partners that employment policies have been, and continue to be, impacted by austerity measures and constrained fiscal environments. In addition, ongoing regulations without first assessing the impacts of previous measures are placing a high burden on employers and employees. Furthermore, the social partners are convinced that the high speed in which these regulations are issued makes compliance more difficult.

The aim of this report is to record statistical material on the banking industry, which includes general data on the employment situation in the banking sector by country and by sector for the EU28. Data from 2016 was compared with 2013 and 2007, where available.

The report presents the following figures:1. Total number of employees2. Total number of branches3. Age groups4. Level of education5. Full-Time / part-time contract6. Permanent / temporary contract7. Gender8. Level of hierarchy9. Pay structure (fix-/ variable pay)10. Reasons for job losses (ERM)11. Ranking of reasons (ESP)12. Reasons for restructuring (ESP)13. Changes in job profiles 1 (based on EBM data)14. Changes in job profiles 2 (based on ESP data)

In order to get a consistent and comparable picture, we analysed several data on European level, namely Eurostat, ECB, Eurofound and EY. The main figures which are used in this report come from Eurostat, namely the LFS (Labour Force Survey) and from the ECB (European Central Bank). These surveys are consistent for all 28 European member states and therefore comparability is guaranteed. As further sources the European Banking Barometer (EBB) by EY, the European Restructuring Monitor (ERM) by Eurofound and the Structure of Earnings Survey (SES) by Eurostat were used. To verify the results and to fill missing figures, a questionnaire was distributed among the members of the Eurpean Social partner (ESBG, EBF-BCESA, EABG, UNI) in Oct/Dec 2017. In addition five interviews with banking experts in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland were conducted in February 2018.

The results of the above were presented at the Final Meeting, which took place in Brussels on 28 June 2018. The presentation of the firm that was awarded the contract to undertake the survey, Kantar Live, is attached as Annex 1 and includes a summary of achievements and problems encountered. Annex 2 covers the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO 08) - part II and the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). Annex 3 includes the two distributed questionnaires, used for this survey.

Back to content

Methodology, Sources and Constraints

Impact of Regulation on Employment in the Banking Industry

The aim of this report was to record statistical material on the banking industry, which includes general data on the employment situation in the banking sector by country and for the EU28. Data from 2016 was compared with 2013 and 2007, if available.The focus was to generate an overview on the development of the total employment situation including specific splits by gender, age, type of employment, level of education, level of hierarchy and pay structure. Furthermore we wanted to get information on the trigger for this development and on the job profiles, which were more or less affected. The data should provide a basis for further research in the planned pillar II.

Methodology and Sources:In order to get a consistent and comparable picture, Kantar Live analysed data mainly on European level from Eurostat (LFS and SES) and the European Central Bank (ECB), also data from Eurofound (European Restructuring Monitor) and EY (European Banking Barometer) was used. For a validation of the data and to close possible gaps, Kantar Live carried out a survey among the (ESP) European Social partners (ESBG, EBF-BCESA, EABG, UNI) from October to December 2017. In addition, interviews with banking experts (ESP) in 5 larger European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland) were conducted in February 2018.

Presentation of Results:In this Excel report, we provided all available data sources side by side to give the possibility for further analysis, comparisons and cross checks. For the total figures for example we displayed data from LFS, ECB and ESP. In contrast for the number of branches only figures from ECB were available. With each of the figures (number of employees, branches etc.), we delivered a short explanation on the data and one or more screen shots of PowerPoint slides from the accompanying presentation for a better visualization. In the PowerPoint presentation, we focused mainly on one data source, which served best the needs of the project.

In general, we have coloured some cells, which means the following: A. mean that these figures are missing. B. mean that these figures are calculated by Kantar Live. For example, a missing share for female was calculated from the existing value for male. C. mean that these figures were corrected by Kantar Live, for example when the share of male and female was obviously mixed up in the source.

Selection and Constraints of Sources:For the total employment figures, we focused on data from the European Central Bank (ECB) which was validated with data from the members of the European Social partners (ESP). This data reflected the actual situation most accurately. A comparison between the ECB data per country and the ESP members' data (15 countries) showed large similarities, which validated both data sources. As ECB provided only total data, we had to use another source for the further splits.

The data for the following splits derives mainly from Eurostat, namely the Labour Force Survey (LFS). This survey is consistent for all 28 European member states and therefore comparability is guaranteed. The data is obtained via a population survey by the national statistical offices. There is one restriction, that the data is not specific for the banking industry and includes also holding companies, trusts, funds and other financial service activities. Another limitation of Eurostat is that by carrying out splits and cross-tabulations, the data base can become rather small so that gaps in the data can occur. Then the cells are left blank by Eurostat or are flagged with a warning signal. To verify the validity of the data, a comparison with the European Social partners (ESP) members data was conducted. We received 24 questionnaires from the ESP members, which covered 15 countries, but some questionnaires contained gaps. Comparing both data sources, we found that the data is not identical but similar in many cases. Thus we mainly focused on the LFS data in the presentation, as these data were more complete.

It is noted that in some cases we noticed deviations between the sources or the data base was quite small. In such cases, and if needed, further research with a larger number of respondents is recommended.

Recommendations for further clarifications:We would recommend to clarify the following points in a larger survey or by the means of further interviews:- The number of employees per branch for Luxembourg was extremely high compared to the other countries.- The percentage of part-time contracts for Malta was quite different in ESP compared to LFS data.- The share of female executives in Latvia and Hungary should be verified, due to their questionable high percentages.- The percentage of Executives and female Executives should be verified in general, due to strong variations between ESP and LFS. - Also the definitions per country for "Executives" in the ESP data should be further analysed and compared to the LFS definition. - Pay structure was mainly based on ESP data for 10 countries. A survey based on more than 10 countries would have more significance.- The reasons for restructuring and herewith job losses are based mainly on 5 expert interviews. A larger survey would have more significance and would reveal more differences by country.- Changes in job profiles were based on EBB data and 5 expert interviews. The results of both surveys show large similarities but should be founded on a larger information base to get more validity.Furthermore: The effects of certain regulations should be further analysed, also in terms of their concrete enactment in the respective countries and subsequent job reductions. - Another focus should be on the expected and estimated future developments in the banking industry, driven by digitalization, market forces and regulation.

Back to content

Summary

The four social partners – EBF-BCESA, ESBG, EACB and UNI Europa Finance – have carried out a project funded by the European Commission in order to assess the impact that banking regulation has had on employment. Please find below the conclusions that we have drawn from the data collection exercise.

1. Total number of employeesIn the EU28 we observe a total loss of 440,200 employees (-14%) from 2007 to 2016 in the banking sector. This shows data from the European Central bank (ECB) and also data from the members of the European social partners (ESP).

The spectrum of country profiles was wide over the period 2007-2016 ranging from significant job losses in some countries (-115.700 highest drop) to moderate job creations in others (+6.800 highest increase). The significant decrease in the number of employees in some large countries significantly affected the general drop at EU level. Reasons for domestic trends are most often country specific and cannot be generalised. Recent policies aiming at the consolidation of the EU banking sector and the restructuring of banks’ branch networks have undoubtedly influenced the decline in employment. In parallel, the digitisation process in recent years has increased the demand for digital skills thus reshaping the equilibrium of the job markets in the banking sector.

2. Bank branches:The decline in bank branches between 2007 and 2016 (-22%) was stronger than the decline in employees (-14%) for the EU28. The average number of employees by branch was 14.7 in 2016 compared to 13.3 in 2007 for the EU28. So we observe an increase in the number of employees by branch in 20 EU countries, due to a stronger decrease in branches compared to employees. A possible explanation is that employees were distributed to other branches after the closing of their branch.

Regulation in the banking sector has put pressure on the number of branches and the number of employees. However, the impact on employment was not as extensive as the impact on the number of branches. This consolidation process is the result of both policy decisions and market trends including digitisation. To cope with this new environment, financial institutions are adjusting their business models to increase client proximity while restructuring their network of branches.

3. Age:A shift to senior age groups can be observed in the EU28 since 2007.

Looking at the total figures, notably the youngest age group 15-24 shows the largest decrease (-38%), followed by 25-39 (-19%), and finally the middle-aged group 40-54 shows a small reduction (-5%). Only the age group 55+ shows an increase of +35%.

Looking at the relative percentages, the groups 25-39 and 40-54 are of course still the largest. In 2007 the largest age group was 25-39 with 44%. In 2016 the largest group shifted to 40-54 with 41%.

The ageing trend of the average bank employee can be interpreted by: i) the stricter requirements on HR hiring procedures as a consequence of the 2007 financial crisis thus increasing the difficulties in recruiting young profiles; ii) the nature of the post-crisis job supply focusing on high-skill labour due to higher regulatory pressure; iii) the competition of new players such as FinTechs increasing the pressure on hiring job seekers belonging to the younger age groups (15-24 and 25-39 year olds).

4. Education level:There is a relative decline in low (-3%) and medium (-11%) education levels compared to an increase in a higher education level (+15%) for the EU28 between 2007 and 2016. This development correlates with an increase in higher age groups. A similar development with varying degrees can be seen in nearly all countries.

The growth of the share of profiles with higher education in the banking sector can be explained by a heightened regulatory pressure and a more complex environment. As a consequence, banks need to recruit more experienced staff with higher degrees. Compliance with multiple regulations obliges banks to choose employees with higher qualifications.

5. Part-Time:Behaviours regarding part-time jobs adoption is clearly different across EU countries. While this practice seems to be widely accepted in countries belonging to the Western block of the EU (where part-time can represent from 24% to 28% of total banking jobs), it remains relatively modest in Eastern countries (below 1% in some countries). About 50% of all countries show a decrease vs. 50% increase in part-time contracts. The changes are mainly only slight. The relative decrease in part-time contracts in some countries was globally compensated by the relative similar increase in other countries. Logically then, the EU28 average remained stable at +0.3% points.

The development of part-time activities can be explained by the following key factors: i) the entrance of new seekers into the job market made necessary by the need for a higher household income in some countries; ii) the increase in wages in some countries allowing the possibility for one member of the household to work part-time; iii) the development of teleworking practices; iv) the need for more flexibility from households to lead in parallel personal and professional lives in a context of widely-accepted gender equality.

6. Permanent contracts: Permanent contracts still make up the majority in all countries and range from 72% to 99% of total banking jobs in 2016 depending on the country.A majority of 20 countries show a small decrease compared to 8 countries with a slight increase from 2007 to 2016. The EU28 average shows also a minor decrease of 1.5% points.

Despite the recent development of part-time activities, permanent contracts remain the predominant form of employment in the banking sector. Yet adjustments are being made on permanent contracts enhancing flexibility for the workers and allowing them to perform their jobs remotely or giving them the opportunity to adapt their working hours in line with professional objectives and personal duties.

7. Gender: Women still make up the majority in the banking industry with 52% in 2016 (LFS data, in ESP data: even more with 54%). In 20 countries female employees exceed 50%. The share of female employees is higher in Eastern European countries (as high as 70% in some countries), than in Western European countries (below 45% in some countries).

Comparing LFS with ESP data, the percentage of female employees is similar but not identical by country. In 7 countries, the percentage is slightly higher in ESP data, in 3 countries it is lower. We observe a decrease in female employees in 18 countries vs and increase in 10 countries. The strongest reduction amounted to 10% points while the largest increase reached about 16%. The EU28 remained relatively stable with -1.1% points.

Banking is one of the sectors that shows equality in employment between males and females. This is especially true in Eastern European countries where gender equality is uneven across sectors and where the banking industry could be seen as a leading and innovative sector in this respect.

8. Level of hierarchy: In the EU28 we observe a total decrease in the number of managers (-33%), clerks (-32%) and technicians (-9%) vs an increase in professionals (+87%) from 2007 to 2016 in the banking industry.

Executives:In 2016, the share of executives in total employment ranged from 4% to 23% in EU countries. Several groups of countries with different trends can be observed: on one hand the group of fastest decline where the share of executives plunged by 8-12%, and on the other hand the group where the number of executives was quickly expanding with rates ranging from 8% to 9.5%. The EU23 average amounted to 12% in 2016 with a decrease since 2007 in the LFS data. In comparison the ESP average for the EU10 is 17% with a slight increase. The differences in the definition for executive positions across member states reduces the reliability of trends observed at EU level.

Female Executives: The share of female executives varies widely with a scope going from 19% for the smallest share of female executives to 64% for the largest share. Six countries with larger shares show a decrease, whereas the majority of 13 countries with mainly smaller shares report an increase. The EU19 average indicates a small increase of 2.2% points.Banks are gender agnostic in regards to employment and grant a high importance to skills and leadership. Over-representation of male executives seems to be changing but more time is needed to confirm this trend.

9. Pay Structure:The pay structure was analysed on one hand by Eurostat SES data for section K (banking and insurance). This data was only available for the years 2006, 2010 and 2014. On the other hand we used ESP members’ data for 2007, 2013 and 2016 for 10 countries. As the latter is more specific for the banking industry and covers the requested years, we recommend focusing on these results. In both sources, we had a reduction in the percentage of variable pay since 2007.

ESP: In the ESP data variable pay varies from 0% to 17%. Only one country experienced an increase in variable pay (+5%) while other countries encountered a decrease in variable pay. The EU average amounts to 7% in 2016.

Eurostat SES: As of 2014, the percentage of variable pay varied from 2% to 21% in EU countries. The EU average amounted to 14%. 18 countries show a decrease compared to 6 countries with an increase.

Post-crisis remuneration policies carried out at EU level have impacted both managerial and non-managerial income with the effect of decreasing the share of variable income in total income.

10. Reasons for Internal Restructuring:A survey from Eurofound analysed that 82% of all published events report “internal restructuring” as the reason for job cuts in the financial industry (banking and insurance for the EU28) from 2007 to 2016. Internal restructuring is from the banking sector’s point of view more a consequence than a reason, therefore Kantar Live conducted a survey among the ESP members to get further indications. In the study four reasons were described to be most important, namely the financial crisis, market forces, digitisation and regulation. The current situation and the reduction in employment is induced by mutual interdependencies of these factors. According to expert interviews, market forces and digitisation are the main triggers, followed by regulation. The impact of the financial crisis seems to be more indirect due to stricter regulations. But the situation is different by country and this result may also vary.

Comments to the main factors:Financial crisis: 1. More indirect than direct impact through increased cost pressure caused by stricter regulations, changed policies, mergers etc. 2. Job losses were more eminent after bust of the dotcom bubble. Nevertheless bank liquidations after the crisis, decreased branches and employees. Market Forces1. Historically low interest rates and a low GDP impact remunerations.2. Increased competition by non-banking competitors: FinTech. 3. Consolidations and restructurings after many mergers and acquisitions.Digitalisation1. Technological innovation modifies the customer demand and customer relationship and fosters the arrival of new competitors, e.g. FinTech.2. New business models: RoboAdvisors, Artificial Intelligence, digital central staff functions, e.g. in HR reduce the need for personnel.3. Employment gains by new job profiles, e.g. in IT, will not compensate the immense job losses, e.g. in retail banking.Regulation1. Increased costs due to more complicated processes, e.g. for documentation.2. Directive Basel III increased requirements on the equity ratio, which ties up capital.3. PSD2, the European Payment Service Directive, forces the banks to disclose customer and account data which increases competition, e.g. of fin-techs.

We should try to collect additional data in the second phase of the project in order to arrive to a more accurate basis for more specific conclusions. The pure numbers of losses do not reflect the efforts of employers and unions and social partners in general (including works councils) in mitigating the effect of the job losses.

A recent study across EU countries has revealed that around 82% of job losses in the banking industry between 2007 and 2016 can be attributed to “internal restructuring”. As a matter of fact, internal restructuring should be perceived as a consequence of environmental change that induced job losses rather than as a root cause. The key drivers of internal restructuring are, from the most important to the least important, as follows: i) market forces, ii) digitisation, iii) banking regulation; iv) the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

Regarding market forces, the environment in which banks have been operating since the financial crisis has been tough and turbulent. Low GDP growth among the EU28 countries combined with a low-interest rate monetary policy has put pressure on the profitability of financial institutions and forced them to adopt new commercial strategies. The entry of new competitors (e.g. FinTechs) on the banking market has also pushed traditional financial services providers to internally reorganise themselves in depth to meet new kinds of customer demands. Finally, the consolidation of the banking assets triggered by policy makers in the EU28 has led to a series of mergers and acquisitions and opened the door for organisational change and cost rationalisation at institutional level.

The advent of the digital era for financial services also played a role in internal restructuring. Technological innovations have created new customer demands, has reshaped customer relationships and has initiated the entry into the market of new competitors. About human resources, financial institutions are adapting new business models including the use of RoboAdvisors, Artificial Intelligence and digital central staff functions with a downsizing impact on labour-intensive tasks.

Another reason that led to internal restructuring is regulation. More complicated processes are leading to higher costs for banks. New prudential rules initiated by Basel III led to higher capital requirements and a need for banks to increase their prudential buffers thus reducing their capacity to reach out to the real economy. Also, the European Payment Services Directive (PSD2) has forced the banks to disclose customer and account data which increases competition.

Finally the financial crisis indirectly impacted financial institutions through a series of subsequent events such as increased cost pressure caused by stricter regulations, changed policies and mergers. The decline in economic conditions also led to a rise of NPLs which in some rare cases led to liquidation thus negatively impacting employment.

11. Changes in job profiles:We used a survey by EY, the European banking monitor (EBM), which covered 12 European countries as a starting point and complemented and verified the results by 5 interviews with banking experts in large European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland).

EBM stated that banking managers in 12 EU countries estimated in 2016 the major headcount reductions in administration, head-office functions and retail and business banking.

Job gains are expected in compliance and asset management, which is a contrast to 2013.

ESP: Banking experts in 5 EU countries expect for the next 10 years more loss than gain. Major loss is expected in administration and retail banking, gain is expected mainly in compliance and IT. The situation will of course differ between the countries.

Summarising, the overall expectations for the EU from EBM and ESP does not match completely but in the main aspects.

Reasons and Expectations for changed job profiles in the last and next 10 years:Past: 2007 to 2016 (last 10 years)1. Simpler activities were already either outsourced or automated, e.g. for payment transactions, loan processing and administration.2. Alliances of joint data centres reduced the needed IT-experts, as one expert serves several centres. In Spain there were strong reductions among IT-experts caused by subcontracting and outsourcing to third parties.3. In the past traditional (retail) banking was most developed, currently the trend (caused by digitisation and market pressure) goes more into asset management, private and corporate banking and internet banking.4. In some countries the workforce remained relatively stable due to decrease and increase, e.g. in France and Poland but in others we had tremendous reductions, e.g. in Germany and in Spain.

Future: 2017 to 2027 (next 10 years)1. Further big mergers among European banks are expected (comparable to HypoVereinsbank and Unicredit), which will affect employment.2. New skills needed among the employees will evolve and organisations have to adapt.3. Digital technologies and automation affects all areas and will decrease employment e.g. in payment and loan processing, head office and administration and retail banking. 4. IT experts with new skills are needed for the further digitalisation and automation but often these positions are outsourced. FinTechs will cause rivalry, but will also be taken over, which will lead to rising employee figures due to integration.5. Regulation will create new jobs in compliance, but will also change job profiles. On the other hand, it might put pressure on jobs.6. Changes in customer demand (e.g. self-deciders in finance), will cause the need for new business models, which means opportunities for new jobs, e.g. in product development.

The changes in job profiles reflect the changing world of banking.

Back to content

1. Total number of employees LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS NACE 64 ECB Source: ECB

NACE 64 * (other years: 2008-2012 hidden!) 64.1, bankingtotal figures 2007 2013 2016 Total change % Change total figures 2007 2013 2016 Total change % ChangeEU 28 4,155,082 3,760,130 3,738,735 -416,347 -10% EU 28 3,240,403 2,963,284 2,800,191 -440,212 -14%EU 15* 2,795,386 2,592,620 2,610,570 -184,815 -7% EU 15* 2,276,538 2,103,653 2,004,675 -271,863 -12%Austria 84,481 92,411 85,294 813 1% Austria 77,731 75,980 72,957 -4,774 -6%Belgium 106,892 66,198 61,256 -45,636 -43% Belgium 67,080 58,237 54,728 -12,352 -18%Bulgaria 31,989 38,161 39,616 7,627 24% Bulgaria 30,953 32,756 30,352 -601 -2%Croatia 27,083 27,599 19,779 -7,305 -27% Croatia 21,704 20,607 -1,097 -5%Cyprus 14,903 15,118 11,114 -3,789 -25% Cyprus 11,286 11,142 10,663 -623 -6%Czech Republic 60,324 77,768 63,829 3,505 6% Czech Republic 40,037 39,742 41,202 1,165 3%Denmark 61,484 52,864 51,740 -9,744 -16% Denmark 49,644 36,367 41,123 -8,521 -17%Estonia 5,915 7,630 7,701 1,786 30% Estonia 6,319 4,861 4,924 -1,395 -22%Finland 32,150 25,465 29,763 -2,388 -7% Finland 25,025 22,402 21,965 -3,060 -12%France 485,256 500,408 529,423 44,167 9% France 424,732 416,262 402,010 -22,722 -5%Germany 783,864 755,013 751,388 -32,476 -4% Germany 691,300 655,600 628,121 -63,179 -9%Greece 81,313 71,679 62,408 -18,904 -23% Greece 64,720 51,242 42,628 -22,092 -34%Hungary 58,544 58,345 61,896 3,353 6% Hungary 41,905 40,642 37,767 -4,138 -10%Ireland 64,324 65,018 62,519 -1,805 -3% Ireland 41,865 29,832 27,091 -14,774 -35%Italy 449,896 411,539 404,829 -45,067 -10% Italy 340,443 306,607 295,305 -45,138 -13%Latvia 14,197 14,759 16,587 2,390 17% Latvia 12,826 10,029 8,803 -4,023 -31%Lithuania 13,505 11,007 11,794 -1,711 -13% Lithuania 10,303 8,392 8,643 -1,660 -16%Luxembourg 16,478 23,685 17,686 1,209 7% Luxembourg 26,139 26,237 26,062 -77 0%Malta 4,698 5,616 6,382 1,684 36% Malta 3,670 4,197 4,752 1,082 29%Netherlands 142,092 148,354 141,598 -494 0% Netherlands 114,424 96,423 85,803 -28,621 -25%Poland 271,102 249,881 255,756 -15,346 -6% Poland 173,955 179,385 173,043 -912 -1%Portugal 70,546 60,560 74,802 4,256 6% Portugal 60,979 55,820 46,584 -14,395 -24%Romania 69,393 90,710 83,540 14,147 20% Romania 66,039 58,612 55,396 -10,643 -16%Slovakia 29,713 31,980 25,825 -3,887 -13% Slovakia 19,779 18,540 19,788 9 0%Slovenia 14,155 14,284 11,981 -2,174 -15% Slovenia 12,051 11,218 10,055 -1,996 -17%Spain 343,396 256,090 261,352 -82,043 -24% Spain 275,506 215,953 186,982 -88,524 -32%Sweden 54,823 53,346 59,715 4,892 9% Sweden 48,457 53,594 55,260 6,803 14%United Kingdom 762,567 534,641 529,160 -233,407 -31% United Kingdom 503,235 421,508 387,577 -115,658 -23%

Available countries from ESP members are marked also in other sources EU15: Reduced EU total (instead of EU28) as comparison to ESP members data

ESP members Source: Questionnaires to ESP members/ 10-12/2017

64.1, bankingtotal figures 2007 2013 2016 Total change % Change NACE-Code % change LFS 64 Members ECB total figures LFS 64 Members ECBEU 28 EU 28 -10% -14% EU 28 3,738,735 2,800,191EU 15 2,204,672 2,053,541 1,967,352 -237,319 -11% EU15 -7% -11% -12% EU 15 2,610,570 1,967,352 2,004,675Austria Austria 1% -6% Austria 85,294 72,957Belgium 57,639 49,459 46,405 -11,233 -19% banking Belgium -43% -19% -18% Belgium 61,256 46,405 54,728Bulgaria Bulgaria 24% -2% Bulgaria 39,616 30,352Croatia Croatia -27% -5% Croatia 19,779 20,607Cyprus 8,169 7,034 9,785 1,616 20% banking Cyprus -25% 20% -6% Cyprus 11,114 9,785 10,663Czech Republic Czech Republ 6% 3% Czech Republ 63,829 41,202Denmark 51,358 47,240 44,760 -6,598 -13% banking Denmark -16% -13% -17% Denmark 51,740 44,760 41,123Estonia Estonia 30% -22% Estonia 7,701 4,924Finland 21,696 22,863 21,676 -20 0% banking Finland -7% 0% -12% Finland 29,763 21,676 21,965France* 378,800 373,500 370,300 -8,500 -2% banking France 9% -2% -5% France 529,423 370,300 402,010Germany 662,650 630,350 608,399 -54,251 -8% 64 Germany -4% -8% -9% Germany 751,388 608,399 628,121Greece Greece -23% -34% Greece 62,408 42,628Hungary Hungary 6% -10% Hungary 61,896 37,767Ireland Ireland -3% -35% Ireland 62,519 27,091Italy 344,644 316,000 308,500 -36,144 -10% 64 Italy -10% -10% -13% Italy 404,829 308,500 295,305Latvia 13,334 9,845 8,686 -4,648 -35% banking Latvia 17% -35% -31% Latvia 16,587 8,686 8,803Lithuania Lithuania -13% -16% Lithuania 11,794 8,643Luxembourg 26,140 26,234 26,060 -80 0% 64 Luxembourg 7% 0% 0% Luxembourg 17,686 26,060 26,062Malta 1,401 1,400 1,487 86 6% 64 Malta 36% 6% 29% Malta 6,382 1,487 4,752Netherlands 147,000 132,000 114,000 -33,000 -22% 64 Netherlands 0% -22% -25% Netherlands 141,598 114,000 85,803Poland 167,172 174,300 168,800 1,628 1% banking Poland -6% 1% -1% Poland 255,756 168,800 173,043Portugal Portugal 6% -24% Portugal 74,802 46,584Romania Romania 20% -16% Romania 83,540 55,396Slovakia Slovakia -13% 0% Slovakia 25,825 19,788Slovenia 12,250 11,201 9,820 -2,430 -20% banking Slovenia -15% -20% -17% Slovenia 11,981 9,820 10,055Spain 270,855 212,991 189,280 -81,575 -30% 64 Spain -24% -30% -32% Spain 261,352 189,280 186,982Sweden 41,564 39,125 39,394 -2,170 -5% 64.1 Sweden 9% -5% 14% Sweden 59,715 39,394 55,260United Kingdom United Kingdo -31% -23% United Kingdo 529,160 387,577*France: data of 2012 instead of 2007

2007/2016 2016

1. Total number of employees LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS NACE 64 ECB Source: ECB

Comments 1:The total number of employees were obtained through the a) Eurostat Labour Force Survey (LFS), that was conducted in each of the 28 member states.b) Figures from the European Central Bank (ECB).c) Data collected by the ESP members (15 countries)

Please mind that the Eurostat LFS figures are available for all years (2007 to 2016), the other years are currently hidden. To open them, please mark the rows 2007, 2013 and 2016, click the right mouse button and then click on "display" or "show".

We had to work with different sources as Eurostat LFS - NACE 64 was the only source, which provided the requested splits on the other hand, it was not specific for banking as NACE 64 covers banking but also holdings, trust, funds and other financial activities.

We therefore decided to work for the total employment figures with data from ECB as this source focused on banking specific data.

A comparison between ECB data per country and the ESP members data (15 countries) showed large similarities, which validated both data sources.

Comments 2:All sources LFS, ECB and ESP data showed a decrease in employee figures from 2007 to 2016.

We had a total loss of 440 200 employees (-14%) from 2007 to 2016 in the banking sector in EU28 in ECB-data.

The largest decrease took place in the UK (-115 700), Spain (-88 500), Germany (-63 000), and Italy (-45 100). Gains happened only in three countries. The largest gain was in Sweden with +6 800 from 2007 to 2016.

The largest percentage loss was observed in Ireland (-35%), Greece (-34%), Spain (-32%) and Latvia (-31%). Major percentage gains happened in Sweden (14%) and Malta (29%).

Back to content

2a. Total number of branches (banks) 2b. Number of Employees Source: ECBper branch

ECBtotal figures 2007 2016 Change in % 2007 2016 ChangeEU 28 244,078 190,059 -22% 13.3 14.7 1.5Austria 4,266 3,934 -8% 18.2 18.5 0.3Belgium 4,425 3,347 -24% 15.2 16.4 1.2Bulgaria 5,827 2,945 -49% 5.3 10.3 5.0Croatia 1,189 1,142 -4% 17.3 18.0 0.7Cyprus 921 544 -41% 12.3 19.6 7.3Czech Republic 1,862 1,958 5% 21.5 21.0 -0.5Denmark 2,194 995 -55% 22.6 41.3 18.7Estonia 266 99 -63% 23.8 49.7 26.0Finland 1,693 1,039 -39% 14.8 21.1 6.4 France 39,560 37,261 -6% 10.7 10.8 0.1Germany 39,777 32,026 -19% 17.4 19.6 2.2Greece 3,850 2,332 -39% 16.8 18.3 1.5Hungary 3,387 2,746 -19% 12.4 13.8 1.4Ireland 1,158 1,029 -11% 36.2 26.3 -9.8Italy 33,230 29,335 -12% 10.2 10.1 -0.2Latvia 682 261 -62% 18.8 33.7 14.9Lithuania 970 506 -48% 10.6 17.1 6.5Luxembourg 229 230 0% 114.1 113.3 -0.8Malta 104 106 2% 35.3 44.8 9.5Netherlands 3,604 1,674 -54% 31.7 51.3 19.5Poland 11,607 13,647 18% 15.0 12.7 -2.3Portugal 6,055 4,928 -19% 10.1 9.5 -0.6Romania 6,340 4,798 -24% 10.4 11.5 1.1Slovakia 1,169 1,293 11% 16.9 15.3 -1.6Slovenia 711 583 -18% 16.9 17.2 0.3Spain 54,500 28,807 -47% 5.1 6.5 1.4Sweden 1,988 1,734 -13% 24.4 31.9 7.5United Kingdom 12,514 10,760 -14% 40.2 36.0 -4.2

Comments:For the number of branches compared to number of employees, ECB sources were used.

The decline in number of branches turned out to be stronger (-22%) than the decline in employees (-14%) for EU28 between 2007 and 2016. The average number of employees per branch was 15 in 2016 compared to 13 in 2007 for EU28. 19 countries showed a decrease compared to only 9 countries with an increase. This is a further indication for a stronger decline of branches compared to employees since 2007.

The number of employees per branch for Luxembourg was extremely high compared to the other countries, this should be verified by further research.

Back to content

3. Age groups LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS

NACE 64% 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+ 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+ 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+ 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+EU 28 8.23% 43.67% 38.57% 9.53% 5.64% 41.14% 40.41% 12.81% 5.69% 39.23% 40.77% 14.31% -2.54 -4.44 2.20 4.78Austria 10.04% 40.70% 42.15% 7.11% 7.76% 37.88% 43.69% 10.68% 10.03% 36.78% 39.25% 13.94% -0.01 -3.92 -2.90 6.83Belgium 5.40% 41.12% 44.11% 9.37% 2.19% 37.23% 45.68% 14.90% 2.30% 32.95% 46.43% 18.33% -3.10 -8.16 2.31 8.95Bulgaria 48.34% 37.03% 57.16% 32.04% 50.25% 34.65% 1.91 -2.38Croatia 2.26% 46.12% 44.68% 6.94% 1.14% 46.89% 38.15% 13.82% 1.56% 50.76% 38.22% 9.47% -0.70 4.64 -6.46 2.53Cyprus 6.87% 45.66% 38.97% 8.50% 1.61% 47.86% 44.66% 5.86% 1.42% 45.69% 42.97% 9.92% -5.45 0.03 4.00 1.42Czech Republic 8.19% 47.81% 32.67% 11.33% 5.69% 44.23% 39.77% 10.31% 5.78% 48.50% 38.63% 7.08% -2.41 0.69 5.97 -4.25Denmark 6.80% 30.69% 44.94% 17.56% 7.11% 33.46% 39.25% 20.19% 6.05% 30.26% 43.95% 19.73% -0.75 -0.43 -0.99 2.17Estonia 62.39% 17.01% 55.30% 28.30% 54.24% 28.74% -8.15 11.73Finland 4.82% 27.56% 47.35% 20.28% 6.80% 34.01% 38.91% 20.28% 3.80% 40.38% 36.65% 19.16% -1.02 12.83 -10.69 -1.12France 5.86% 36.67% 43.49% 13.98% 5.61% 40.92% 38.15% 15.31% 6.85% 40.38% 36.59% 16.18% 0.99 3.72 -6.91 2.20Germany 10.54% 39.59% 38.72% 11.14% 9.89% 29.79% 43.21% 17.12% 9.25% 27.26% 44.73% 18.76% -1.29 -12.33 6.01 7.62Greece 5.32% 47.42% 38.58% 8.68% 1.64% 43.03% 46.45% 8.88% 1.23% 39.94% 51.46% 7.37% -4.08 -7.47 12.87 -1.32Hungary 7.70% 49.09% 35.80% 7.41% 4.80% 46.17% 39.32% 9.71% 2.57% 48.29% 39.64% 9.50% -5.14 -0.79 3.84 2.09Ireland 17.59% 50.39% 26.41% 5.61% 4.05% 55.32% 31.40% 9.23% 5.31% 52.80% 33.08% 8.81% -12.28 2.41 6.67 3.19Italy 2.45% 38.81% 48.56% 10.18% 0.51% 32.54% 51.32% 15.63% 0.92% 28.34% 50.81% 19.92% -1.53 -10.47 2.25 9.75Latvia 12.99% 48.83% 25.99% 12.19% 11.54% 67.62% 15.90% 4.94% 11.47% 53.33% 27.18% 8.02% -1.52 4.50 1.18 -4.16Lithuania 64.93% 20.55% 62.23% 29.83% 61.34% 20.72% -3.59 0.17Luxembourg 2.19% 47.60% 45.64% 4.56% 3.27% 40.53% 46.62% 9.58% 2.58% 38.89% 50.45% 8.08% 0.39 -8.71 4.81 3.51Malta 11.00% 59.22% 23.93% 5.85% 6.33% 61.63% 25.81% 6.23% 13.68% 52.76% 26.41% 7.15% 2.68 -6.46 2.48 1.30Netherlands 6.94% 47.54% 36.63% 8.89% 2.54% 35.05% 47.96% 14.45% 2.00% 28.99% 50.99% 18.02% -4.94 -18.55 14.36 9.13Poland 8.42% 52.57% 33.17% 5.85% 4.83% 59.40% 26.97% 8.80% 3.02% 59.71% 27.42% 9.86% -5.40 7.14 -5.74 4.01Portugal 2.63% 43.40% 40.89% 13.08% 0.45% 39.92% 47.25% 12.38% 2.18% 38.51% 48.47% 10.83% -0.45 -4.88 7.58 -2.24Romania 58.70% 34.61% 61.08% 29.35% 57.02% 34.99% -1.67 0.37Slovakia 10.30% 53.64% 31.73% 4.33% 6.61% 58.07% 26.52% 8.80% 5.17% 53.39% 30.80% 10.63% -5.13 -0.25 -0.93 6.30Slovenia 3.94% 40.98% 46.71% 8.37% 2.43% 48.16% 41.74% 7.68% 2.37% 36.84% 48.24% 12.55% -1.58 -4.14 1.54 4.19Spain 4.14% 46.55% 38.60% 10.71% 2.78% 41.26% 46.32% 9.63% 3.07% 43.03% 43.73% 10.16% -1.07 -3.51 5.13 -0.55Sweden 5.78% 39.29% 38.08% 16.85% 6.95% 39.67% 39.42% 13.97% 7.86% 36.47% 40.32% 15.34% 2.08 -2.82 2.25 -1.51United Kingdom 14.12% 48.24% 32.08% 5.56% 8.07% 48.77% 34.50% 8.66% 8.31% 46.63% 35.09% 9.96% -5.81 -1.61 3.02 4.40

data is calculated by Kantardata is missing

2007 2013 2016 Change 2007/ 2016 (percent points)

3. Age groups ESP members Source: Questionnaires to ESP members/ 10-12/2017

64.1, banking% 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+ 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+ 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+ 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+EU 28 5.54% 41.36% 40.35% 12.76% 3.72% 40.84% 42.97% 12.09% 3.68% 36.01% 45.82% 14.49% -1.86 -5.35 5.47 1.72Austria Belgium 5.18% 36.55% 44.75% 13.51% 2.99% 35.86% 45.35% 15.80% 2.36% 32.25% 46.76% 18.63% -2.82 -4.30 2.01 5.12BulgariaCroatiaCyprus 4.56% 49.09% 35.30% 11.05% 0.31% 43.02% 52.75% 3.92% 0.69% 38.62% 53.23% 7.46% -3.88 -10.47 17.93 -3.59Czech RepublicDenmark 6.73% 32.16% 44.40% 16.71% 4.33% 32.54% 43.50% 19.64% 4.47% 31.22% 42.70% 21.60% -2.26 -0.94 -1.70 4.89Estonia Finland 2.44% 23.40% 51.17% 22.99% 2.66% 34.63% 39.61% 23.10% 2.49% 36.40% 36.95% 24.16% 0.05 13.00 -14.22 1.17France* 2.50% 42.60% 34.80% 20.10% 2.80% 43.00% 35.30% 18.70% 2.80% 43.20% 37.20% 16.80% 0.30 0.60 2.40 -3.30Germany 5.74% 39.56% 46.85% 7.84% 3.02% 30.88% 53.94% 12.15% 2.41% 28.62% 53.42% 15.55% -3.33 -10.94 6.57 7.71GreeceHungaryIrelandItaly 3.04% 38.06% 51.13% 7.77% 0.86% 26.39% 51.89% 14.79% 0.81% 26.14% 52.20% 20.85% -2.23 -11.92 1.07 13.08Latvia 12.99% 48.83% 25.99% 12.19% 11.54% 67.62% 15.90% 4.94% 11.47% 53.33% 27.18% 8.02% -1.52 4.50 1.19 -4.17LithuaniaLuxembourg 4.55% 54.07% 38.16% 3.22% 1.63% 42.93% 50.04% 5.41% 1.80% 41.00% 50.08% 7.12% -2.75 -13.07 11.92 3.90Malta 7.06% 55.90% 32.90% 4.14% 6.95% 45.20% 41.35% 6.50% 9.35% 39.60% 44.45% 6.60% 2.29 -16.30 11.55 2.46Netherlands 6.94% 47.54% 36.63% 8.89% 2.54% 35.05% 47.96% 14.45% 2.00% 28.99% 50.99% 18.02% -4.94 -18.55 14.36 9.13Poland 4.00% 62.00% 29.00% 6.00%Portugal RomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain 5.25% 35.71% 42.62% 16.43% 2.50% 39.38% 52.32% 5.81% 1.00% 35.50% 58.00% 5.50% -4.25 -0.21 15.38 -10.93Sweden 5.00% 34.20% 39.80% 21.10% 5.90% 33.30% 42.70% 18.10% 6.20% 33.30% 42.50% 18.00% 1.20 -0.90 2.70 -3.10United Kingdom*France: data of 2012 instead of 2007

2013 2016 Change 2007/ 2016 (percent points)2007

3. Age groups

Comments:The age groups analysis is based on Eurostat LFS-data.LFS data and the ESP members data show similarities.

Both sources show the same development,an increase in higher and decrease in younger age groups.

Looking at the total figures, notably the younger age groups (15-24) show a decrease (-38%), followed by (25-39) (-19%) and also the middle aged group (40-54) shows a small reduction (-5%). Only the age-group 55+ shows an increase of +35%.

Looking at the relative percentages, the groups (25-39) and (40-54) are of course still the largest. In 2007 the largest age group was (25-39) with 44%. In 2016 the largest group shifted to (40-54) with 41%.

This is the case for LFS but also for ESP members data for the EU average. Also the 55+ group shows an increase in both sources. The ESP members source is of course incomplete with only 13 countries covered.

3. Age groups LFS

Total figures

EU 28 totals 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+2007 (4.155 thous.) 342,076 1,814,717 1,602,485 395,8042013 (3.760 thous.) 212,224 1,546,910 1,519,326 481,7092016 (3.739 thous.) 212,880 1,467,192 1,524,653 535,072

EU 28 % 15-24 25-39 40-54 55+2016 5.7% 39.2% 40.8% 14.3%2013 5.6% 41.1% 40.4% 12.8%2007 8.2% 43.7% 38.6% 9.5%

Change 07/16 -129,196 -347,525 -77,832 139,268% Change 07/16 -38% -19% -5% 35%

Back to content

4. Level of education LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS

NACE 64% low medium high low medium high low medium high low medium highEU 28 7.12% 49.29% 43.34% 4.33% 42.44% 52.89% 3.92% 37.84% 58.06% -3.2 -11.5 14.7Austria 5.64% 78.94% 15.42% 5.83% 73.46% 20.71% 4.84% 39.27% 55.88% -0.8 -39.7 40.5Belgium 4.92% 28.89% 66.19% 2.41% 23.19% 74.39% 1.68% 20.59% 77.74% -3.2 -8.3 11.5Bulgaria 0.80% 31.61% 67.59% 0.53% 26.59% 72.87% 1.08% 20.74% 78.17% 0.3 -10.9 10.6Croatia 1.63% 64.20% 34.16% 0.39% 53.74% 45.87% 0.93% 50.38% 48.69% -0.7 -13.8 14.5Cyprus 2.10% 41.85% 56.05% 1.23% 26.33% 72.44% 1.84% 20.62% 77.54% -0.3 -21.2 21.5Czech Republic 0.36% 67.36% 32.28% 0.27% 52.20% 47.52% 0.00% 43.48% 56.52% -0.4 -23.9 24.2Denmark 8.34% 60.04% 30.05% 4.56% 49.83% 44.91% 6.57% 45.07% 47.46% -1.8 -15.0 17.4Estonia 0.00% 38.87% 61.13% 0.00% 19.96% 80.04% 1.30% 33.74% 64.96% 1.3 -5.1 3.8Finland 8.60% 24.99% 66.41% 4.21% 25.07% 70.72% 1.83% 19.78% 78.39% -6.8 -5.2 12.0France 10.36% 36.77% 52.87% 4.87% 25.48% 69.65% 4.22% 19.71% 76.08% -6.1 -17.1 23.2Germany 4.12% 69.04% 26.84% 4.21% 66.34% 29.42% 3.47% 64.18% 32.22% -0.7 -4.9 5.4Greece 4.59% 40.10% 55.31% 1.66% 34.87% 63.47% 2.25% 33.77% 63.98% -2.3 -6.3 8.7Hungary 1.74% 56.18% 42.08% 0.31% 45.42% 54.28% 0.49% 38.91% 60.60% -1.3 -17.3 18.5Ireland 4.39% 35.20% 58.65% 4.59% 22.85% 72.56% 2.65% 19.34% 78.01% -1.7 -15.9 19.4Italy 5.53% 64.21% 30.26% 4.11% 58.92% 36.97% 2.98% 55.78% 41.24% -2.5 -8.4 11.0Latvia 3.11% 32.41% 64.48% 2.25% 15.20% 82.55% 2.67% 19.15% 78.18% -0.4 -13.3 13.7Lithuania 80.40% 87.65% 83.61% 3.2Luxembourg 11.53% 44.32% 44.16% 4.30% 30.66% 63.75% 5.11% 23.14% 65.04% -6.4 -21.2 20.9Malta 18.14% 48.25% 33.62% 8.12% 47.23% 44.65% 7.92% 49.10% 42.98% -10.2 0.9 9.4Netherlands 8.68% 36.99% 54.21% 6.61% 32.86% 59.90% 5.83% 31.38% 62.54% -2.9 -5.6 8.3Poland 0.40% 40.40% 59.20% 0.54% 26.13% 73.32% 0.53% 26.94% 72.53% 0.1 -13.5 13.3Portugal 18.96% 35.67% 45.37% 8.24% 37.03% 54.73% 5.30% 31.39% 63.31% -13.7 -4.3 17.9Romania 1.03% 35.41% 63.56% 0.55% 20.46% 78.99% 0.15% 17.22% 82.63% -0.9 -18.2 19.1Slovakia 0.00% 53.55% 46.45% 0.00% 44.04% 55.96% 0.19% 44.98% 54.83% 0.2 -8.6 8.4Slovenia 0.84% 56.72% 42.44% 0.51% 43.22% 56.27% 0.00% 28.10% 71.90% -0.8 -28.6 29.5Spain 6.41% 28.40% 65.19% 2.44% 18.75% 78.81% 1.13% 13.07% 85.80% -5.3 -15.3 20.6Sweden 5.31% 53.91% 40.78% 1.93% 47.08% 50.99% 2.67% 44.19% 52.98% -2.6 -9.7 12.2United Kingdom 13.91% 46.25% 38.80% 9.36% 39.21% 49.71% 10.15% 33.97% 55.40% -3.8 -12.3 16.6

data is calculated by Kantardata is missing

2007 2013 2016 Change 2007/2016 (percentage points)

Definition: Education levels

Comments:For the level of education we used the Eurostat LFS source only. The education levels were split in three levels: low, medium and high. The detailed definition can be found in the link above. You can see an overall decline of the medium education level (-12 percent points) for EU28 and an opposed increase of higher education level (+15 percent points) between 2007 and 2016.

There is a similar development with varying degrees in nearly all the countries.

Back to content

5. Full- or part-time LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS

NACE 64 Change 2007/16% full-time part-time full-time part-time full-time part-time part-time (pp)EU 28 90.72% 9.22% 91.05% 8.95% 90.61% 9.39% 0.17Austria 82.08% 17.92% 76.54% 23.46% 75.85% 24.15% 6.23Belgium 79.32% 20.68% 83.76% 16.24% 75.87% 24.13% 3.45Bulgaria 98.39% 1.61% 99.27% 0.73% 99.03% 0.97% -0.64Croatia 100.00% 0.00% 99.37% 0.63% 97.02% 2.98% 2.98Cyprus 99.12% 0.88% 99.64% 0.36% 97.05% 2.95% 2.07Czech Republic 94.23% 5.77% 93.29% 6.71% 95.84% 4.16% -1.61Denmark 82.09% 17.84% 83.72% 16.28% 83.54% 16.46% -1.38Estonia 86.12% 13.88% 92.01% 7.99% 93.99% 6.01% -7.87Finland 90.88% 9.12% 93.28% 6.72% 90.46% 9.54% 0.42France 89.02% 10.98% 88.53% 11.47% 90.22% 9.78% -1.20Germany 80.55% 19.45% 77.65% 22.35% 75.85% 24.15% 4.70Greece 98.69% 1.31% 99.32% 0.68% 99.01% 0.99% -0.32Hungary 96.60% 3.40% 93.64% 6.36% 96.37% 3.63% 0.23Ireland 87.22% 12.78% 89.13% 10.87% 92.23% 7.77% -5.01Italy 90.64% 9.36% 89.32% 10.68% 90.54% 9.46% 0.10Latvia 94.92% 5.08% 99.58% 0.42% 97.36% 2.64% -2.44Lithuania 98.22% 1.78% 98.86% 1.14% 98.11% 1.89% 0.11Luxembourg 88.10% 11.90% 86.71% 13.29% 86.18% 13.82% 1.92Malta 89.84% 10.16% 81.86% 18.14% 82.09% 17.91% 7.75Netherlands 65.67% 34.33% 71.74% 28.26% 71.63% 28.37% -5.97Poland 94.60% 5.40% 95.65% 4.35% 95.30% 4.70% -0.70Portugal 96.13% 3.87% 98.61% 1.39% 97.75% 2.25% -1.62Romania 100.00% 0.00% 99.73% 0.27% 99.26% 0.74% 0.74Slovakia 100.00% 0.00% 95.86% 4.14% 96.68% 3.32% 3.32Slovenia 98.30% 1.70% 98.30% 1.70% 98.41% 1.59% -0.10Spain 97.35% 2.65% 97.58% 2.42% 93.96% 6.04% 3.39Sweden 79.17% 19.11% 81.06% 18.94% 82.01% 17.99% -1.12United Kingdom 82.91% 17.09% 85.46% 14.54% 85.55% 14.45% -2.64

data is calculated by Kantar Definition: Full-time/part time.

2007 2013 2016


64.1, banking Change 2007/16% full-time part-time full-time part-time full-time part-time part-time (pp)EU 13 86.55% 13.45% 87.15% 12.85% 87.04% 12.96% -0.49AustriaBelgium 72.69% 27.31% 72.39% 27.61% 71.19% 28.81% 1.50BulgariaCroatiaCyprus 99.98% 0.02% 99.93% 0.07% 99.93% 0.07% 0.05Czech RepublicDenmark 81.14% 18.86% 83.20% 16.80% 84.65% 15.35% -3.51EstoniaFinland 91.50% 8.50% 92.30% 7.70% 92.60% 7.40% -1.10France* 88.30% 11.70% 88.00% 12.00% 88.50% 11.50% -0.20Germany 82.0% 18.0% 77.66% 22.34% 75.14% 24.86% 6.85GreeceHungaryIrelandItaly 91.75% 8.25% 89.75% 10.25% 88.00% 12.00% 3.75Latvia 94.92% 5.08% 99.58% 0.42% 97.36% 2.64% -2.44LithuaniaLuxembourg 87.76% 12.24% 80.28% 19.72% 81.52% 18.48% 6.24Malta 96.65% 3.35% 100.00% 0.00% 98.35% 1.65% -1.70Netherlands 65.67% 34.33% 71.74% 28.26% 71.63% 28.37% -5.97PolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain 97.50% 2.50% 97.50% 2.50% 97.50% 2.50% 0.00Sweden 75.30% 24.70% 80.60% 19.40% 85.10% 14.90% -9.80United Kingdom*France: data of 2012 instead of 2007

2007 2013 2016

Comments:The part-time analyis is based again on Eurostat LFS data. Part-time work seems to be more widespread in Western or economically stable countries (Netherlands, Austria and Belgium 24-28%) than in weaker economies, such as Romania, Greece and Bulgaria (~0-1%).

About 50% of all countries show a decrease vs. 50% increase in part-time contracts.Part-time contracts decreased in Estonia, the Netherlands and Ireland by -5 to -8% percent points and increased in Malta, Austria, Germany and Belgium by 4 to 8 percent points. The EU28 average remains stable at +0.2 percent points.

The ESP members data show slightly higher results for part-time (EU13: 13%), than the Eurostat LFS data (9.4%). Also the country data shows small differences from 0 up to 5 pp for part-time, but all results point into the same direction.The only exception is Malta, where the results are quite different. ESP part-time is 1.6 % and Eurostat LFS: 18%.

Back to content

6. Temporary or permanent LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS

NACE 64 Change 2007/16% permanent temporary permanent temporary permanent temporary permanentEU 28 91.11% 6.34% 90.46% 5.82% 89.61% 6.58% -1.50Austria 95.65% 3.97% 96.42% 3.30% 95.37% 4.43% -0.28Belgium 93.47% 2.09% 94.08% 93.27% -0.19Bulgaria 93.71% 97.95% 97.44% 3.73Croatia 95.40% 95.95% 91.38% -4.01Cyprus 98.09% 96.39% 94.71% 5.29% -3.38Czech Republic 80.59% 4.59% 81.42% 3.76% 84.75% 5.61% 4.15Denmark 94.98% 3.66% 95.45% 93.65% -1.33Estonia 97.65% 94.43% 94.22% -3.43Finland 89.95% 8.22% 90.58% 8.46% 88.05% 11.01% -1.90France 93.77% 5.64% 89.79% 7.79% 87.22% 10.30% -6.55Germany 91.88% 7.39% 90.52% 7.69% 90.35% 7.98% -1.52Greece 96.77% 3.23% 96.07% 2.16% 96.83% 2.64% 0.07Hungary 89.56% 94.16% 94.80% 5.25Ireland 91.16% 4.33% 89.75% 5.68% 91.93% 3.96% 0.77Italy 91.44% 4.60% 92.64% 2.49% 95.06% 1.59% 3.63Latvia 96.31% 96.16% 92.39% -3.92Lithuania 97.91% 99.75% 94.49% -3.42Luxembourg 95.49% 4.51% 94.34% 3.54% 94.14% -1.35Malta 94.23% 94.15% 91.97% 7.52% -2.25Netherlands 86.38% 11.06% 74.82% 8.44% 72.02% 6.11% -14.35Poland 81.40% 14.58% 80.22% 15.86% 78.75% 17.70% -2.66Portugal 85.81% 13.25% 95.72% 90.66% 7.63% 4.85Romania 99.63% 97.90% 99.26% -0.37Slovakia 83.80% 78.89% 86.01% 2.22Slovenia 92.22% 7.41% 90.55% 8.31% 91.92% 7.56% -0.29Spain 86.60% 10.60% 93.81% 5.67% 89.32% 9.62% 2.71Sweden 89.56% 9.54% 89.27% 8.84% 87.38% 8.39% -2.18United Kingdom 93.38% 3.18% 92.49% 2.85% 91.60% 2.06% -1.78

data is missingDefinition: Temporary and Permanent work

2007 2013 2016


64.1, banking Change 2007/16% permanent temporary permanent temporary permanent temporary permanentEU 12 96.03% 3.72% 95.12% 3.39% 94.15% 3.59% -1.88AustriaBelgium 97.98% 2.02% 99.17% 0.83% 99.10% 0.90% 1.12BulgariaCroatiaCyprus 97.93% 2.07% 99.69% 0.31% 97.67% 2.33% -0.26Czech RepublicDenmark 96.34% 3.66% 97.67% 2.33% 97.61% 2.39% 1.26EstoniaFinlandFrance* 99.10% 0.90% 98.80% 1.20% 98.70% 1.30% -0.40Germany 93.20% 6.10% 93.30% 5.40% 0.10GreeceHungaryIrelandItaly 98.41% 1.59% 99.32% 0.68% 99.32% 0.68% 0.91Latvia 96.31% 96.16% 92.39% -3.92LithuaniaLuxembourg 96.86% 3.14% 97.23% 2.77% 0.37Malta 98.14% 1.86% 95.65% 4.35% 92.24% 7.76% -5.90Netherlands 86.38% 11.06% 74.82% 8.44% 72.02% 6.11% -14.35PolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain 97.50% 2.50% 97.50% 2.50% 97.50% 2.50% 0.00Sweden 92.20% 7.80% 92.60% 7.40% 92.70% 7.30% 0.50United Kingdom*France: data of 2012 instead of 2007

20162007 2013

Comments:The data for permant and temporary work is based again on Eurostat LFS data.

Permanent contracts account for the majority in all countries and range from 72% in the Netherlands to 99% in Romania in 2016. EU28 average amounts to 90% permanent contracts.The majority of 20 countries shows a small decrease compared to 8 countries with a slight increase. EU28 average shows also a decrease of 1.5 percent points, so there seems to be not much variation or change towards temporary contracts.

The largest decrease of the share of permanent jobs was observed in the Netherlands (-14,4 percent points) vs. a small increase in Hungary, Portugal and Czech Republic (4.2-5.2 percent points). EU28showed a decrease of 1.5 percent point since 2007s.The ESP members data shows on average slightly higher percentages of permanent work (94%) and lower shares of temporary (3.6%) for EU12.

Back to content

7. Gender LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS

NACE 64 Change 2007/16% male female male female male female female (pp)EU 28 46.66% 53.34% 47.70% 52.30% 47.80% 52.20% -1.15Austria 45.58% 54.42% 43.38% 56.62% 49.08% 50.92% -3.49Belgium 53.52% 46.48% 53.65% 46.35% 51.06% 48.94% 2.45Bulgaria 27.74% 72.26% 34.82% 65.18% 26.19% 73.81% 1.55Croatia 25.58% 74.42% 17.00% 83.00% 30.79% 69.21% -5.21Cyprus 46.07% 53.93% 51.24% 48.76% 30.03% 69.97% 16.04Czech Republic 33.38% 66.62% 45.91% 54.09% 37.27% 62.73% -3.89Denmark 50.68% 49.32% 52.50% 47.50% 57.17% 42.83% -6.48Estonia 28.34% 71.66% 25.01% 74.99% 33.53% 66.47% -5.19Finland 30.08% 69.92% 35.69% 64.31% 37.01% 62.99% -6.93France 42.79% 57.21% 47.49% 52.51% 46.02% 53.98% -3.23Germany 42.79% 57.21% 44.85% 55.15% 45.93% 54.07% -3.14Greece 48.49% 51.51% 47.59% 52.41% 49.98% 50.02% -1.49Hungary 30.29% 69.71% 34.35% 65.65% 37.90% 62.10% -7.62Ireland 39.24% 60.76% 46.08% 53.92% 47.98% 52.02% -8.74Italy 61.35% 38.65% 56.71% 43.29% 57.20% 42.80% 4.16Latvia 31.12% 68.88% 33.79% 66.21% 29.16% 70.84% 1.96Lithuania 25.42% 74.58% 24.52% 75.48% 31.29% 68.71% -5.86Luxembourg 55.81% 44.19% 59.36% 40.64% 55.12% 44.88% 0.69Malta 47.51% 52.49% 43.35% 56.65% 44.05% 55.95% 3.46Netherlands 52.95% 47.05% 63.64% 36.36% 63.29% 36.71% -10.34Poland 28.48% 71.52% 31.13% 68.87% 28.95% 71.05% -0.47Portugal 53.31% 46.69% 60.63% 39.37% 59.26% 40.74% -5.95Romania 29.84% 70.16% 32.60% 67.40% 31.62% 68.38% -1.78Slovakia 35.15% 64.85% 36.11% 63.89% 26.96% 73.04% 8.19Slovenia 27.86% 72.14% 35.70% 64.30% 34.49% 65.51% -6.62Spain 59.25% 40.75% 55.19% 44.81% 49.20% 50.80% 10.05Sweden 47.65% 52.35% 44.96% 55.04% 45.80% 54.20% 1.84United Kingdom 50.12% 49.88% 52.25% 47.75% 56.66% 43.34% -6.55

Available countries from ESP members are marked also in other sources data is calculated by Kantar

2007 2013 2016


64.1, banking Change 2007/16% male female male female male female female (pp)EU 10 47.54% 52.46% 44.54% 55.46% 46.42% 53.58% 1.13AustriaBelgium 52.26% 47.74% 49.83% 50.17% 49.29% 50.71% 2.97BulgariaCroatiaCyprus 47.84% 52.16% 43.46% 56.54% 39.83% 60.17% 8.01Czech RepublicDenmark 47.58% 52.42% 50.79% 49.21% 52.31% 47.69% -4.73EstoniaFinland 22.74% 77.26% 29.08% 70.92% 31.77% 68.23% -9.03France* 43.16% 56.84% 42.86% 57.14% 42.88% 57.12% 0.28Germany GreeceHungaryIrelandItaly 55.68% 44.29% 53.50% 46.50% 54.79% 45.21% 0.92LatviaLithuaniaLuxembourg 53.11% 46.89% 53.67% 46.33% 53.75% 46.25% -0.64Malta 47.20% 52.80% 41.75% 58.25% 40.33% 59.67% 6.87NetherlandsPoland 25.00% 75.00%PortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain 59.82% 40.18% 52.00% 48.00% 50.21% 49.79% 9.61Sweden 46.00% 54.00% 48.00% 52.00% 49.00% 51.00% -3.00United Kingdom*France: data of 2012 instead of 2007

2007 2013 2016

Comments:The Gender analysis is based on Eurostat LFS due to a higher completeness of data.

In EU28 the majority of employees in the banking industry is female with 52% in 2016. In 20 countries female employees exceed 50%. The share of female employees is higher in Eastern European countries, such as Bulgaria, Slovenia and Latvia (=>70%), than in Western European countries such as Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark and UK (<45%).

From 2007 to 2016, we had a larger total decrease of female employees with about-264 900 (-12%) compared to male employees with about -151 500 (-8%);

Looking at the shares of males and females, we observe a relative decrease of femaleemployees in 18 countries vs increase in 10 countries between 2007 and 2016. Largest reduction of 10 percent points was in the Netherlands compared to largest increase in Cyprus with 16 percent points. The EU28 average showed a slight decrease of - 1.1 pp.

ESP: Comparing ESP and LFS data, the development between 2007 and 2016 is similar by country, beside two countries Luxembourg and Sweden, where we had a slight decrease in ESP compared to an increase in LFS. In general the differences are so minor, that the overall situation (shares of males and females) can be assessed as stable.

Back to content

8. Level of hierarchy (in %) LFS Source: Eurostat/LFS

NACE 64 Change 2007/16

in %ISCO 1

Executivestotal male female total male female total male female total male female total male female total male female Female (pp)

EU 28 15.96% 66.55% 33.45% 84.04% 42.88% 57.12% 12.86% 67.38% 32.62% 87.14% 44.79% 55.21% 11.87% 64.36% 35.64% 88.13% 45.57% 54.43% 2.19Austria 8.40% 77.26% 22.74% 91.60% 42.68% 57.32% 9.46% 85.88% 14.12% 90.54% 38.94% 61.06% 7.98% 72.06% 27.94% 92.02% 47.08% 52.92% 5.20Belgium 18.35% 69.80% 30.20% 81.65% 49.86% 50.14% 18.21% 66.47% 33.53% 81.79% 50.79% 49.21% 16.06% 58.84% 41.16% 83.94% 49.58% 50.42% 10.96BulgariaCroatiaCyprus 11.43% 78.75% 21.25% 88.57% 41.86% 58.14% 6.80% 87.41% 12.59% 93.20% 48.60% 51.40% 12.33% 62.14% 37.86% 87.67% 25.52% 74.48% 16.61Czech Republic 11.59% 54.03% 45.97% 88.41% 30.67% 69.33% 9.16% 75.66% 24.34% 90.84% 42.91% 57.09% 9.27% 55.74% 44.26% 90.73% 35.38% 64.62% -1.71Denmark 10.46% 78.69% 21.31% 89.54% 47.41% 52.59% 4.45% 95.55%Estonia Finland 20.45% 78.28% 21.72% 79.55% 17.69% 82.31% 14.70% 72.83% 27.17% 85.30% 29.29% 70.71% 12.17% 63.49% 36.51% 87.83% 33.34% 66.66% 14.80France 32.08% 60.15% 39.85% 67.92% 34.58% 65.42% 25.21% 63.26% 36.74% 74.79% 42.17% 57.83% 21.06% 63.31% 36.69% 78.94% 41.40% 58.60% -3.16Germany 3.84% 71.15% 28.85% 96.16% 43.80% 56.20% 4.44% 76.16% 23.84% 95.56% 44.53% 55.47% -5.01Greece 13.76% 69.62% 30.38% 86.24% 45.12% 54.88% 9.49% 64.48% 35.52% 90.51% 45.82% 54.18% 5.13% 65.83% 34.17% 94.87% 49.12% 50.88% 3.79Hungary 11.38% 36.61% 63.39% 88.62% 29.47% 70.53% 8.01% 91.99% 37.34% 71.37% 8.20% 39.91% 60.09% 91.80% 37.72% 62.28% -3.31Ireland 22.36% 54.93% 45.07% 77.64% 34.72% 65.28% 15.19% 64.13% 35.87% 84.81% 42.84% 57.16% 16.44% 52.74% 47.26% 83.56% 47.05% 52.95% 2.20Italy 10.73% 83.69% 16.31% 89.27% 58.67% 41.33% 4.33% 90.25% 9.75% 95.67% 55.19% 44.81% 4.20% 81.44% 18.56% 95.80% 56.14% 43.86% 2.26Latvia 12.41% 28.10% 71.90% 87.59% 31.55% 68.45% 11.73% 88.27% 15.68% 36.24% 63.76% 84.32% 27.85% 72.15% -8.13LithuaniaLuxembourg 6.01% 93.47% 6.53% 93.99% 53.40% 46.60% 4.55% 87.53% 12.47% 95.45% 58.01% 41.99% 4.04% 71.80% 28.20% 95.96% 54.41% 45.59% 21.67Malta 20.16% 85.64% 14.36% 79.84% 37.88% 62.12% 24.19% 69.72% 30.28% 75.81% 34.94% 65.06% 22.56% 54.71% 45.29% 77.44% 40.94% 59.06% 30.92Netherlands 10.30% 79.93% 20.07% 89.70% 49.85% 50.15% 15.48% 82.12% 17.88% 84.52% 60.25% 39.75% 18.42% 73.15% 26.85% 81.58% 61.07% 38.93% 6.78Poland 7.96% 55.33% 44.67% 92.04% 26.16% 73.84% 12.86% 45.72% 54.28% 87.14% 28.98% 71.02% 10.32% 49.81% 50.19% 89.68% 26.55% 73.45% 5.52Portugal 17.53% 86.00% 14.00% 82.47% 55.24% 44.76% 17.22% 74.46% 25.54% 82.78% 56.10% 43.90% 11.54RomaniaSlovakia 12.73% 68.20% 31.80% 87.27% 30.33% 69.67% 7.67% 92.33% 12.45% 87.55%Slovenia 8.16% 60.73% 39.27% 91.84% 26.85% 73.15% 8.81% 57.30% 42.70% 91.19% 33.61% 66.39% 17.63% 52.95% 47.05% 82.37% 30.53% 69.47% 7.79Spain 16.05% 78.66% 21.34% 83.95% 55.54% 44.46% 23.02% 67.23% 32.77% 76.98% 51.59% 48.41% 20.26% 54.14% 45.86% 79.74% 47.94% 52.06% 24.52Sweden 8.74% 68.14% 31.86% 91.26% 45.68% 54.32% 10.41% 63.59% 36.41% 89.59% 42.80% 57.20% 8.74% 52.80% 47.20% 91.26% 45.67% 54.33% 15.34United Kingdom 28.85% 65.02% 34.98% 71.15% 44.07% 55.93% 19.67% 69.80% 30.20% 80.33% 47.95% 52.05% 17.05% 72.48% 27.52% 82.95% 53.42% 46.58% -7.46

data is calculated by Kantardata is missingdata is corrected

Please mind the definition of Executives/Managers in the ISCO-classification

2007 2013 2016ISCO1

Executives ManagersISCO2-9Other

ISCO1Executives Managers

ISCO2-9Other


ISCO2-9Other

8. Level of hierarchy (total figures) LFS

NACE 64 Change 2007/16

total figuresISCO 1

Executivestotal male female total male female total male female total male female total male female total male female Female (%)

EU 28 663,239 441,405 221,834 3,491,843 1,497,290 1,994,553 483,484 325,787 157,697 3,276,646 1,467,700 1,808,946 443,782 285,615 158,167 3,294,953 1,501,628 1,793,325 -28.7%Austria 7,094 5,481 1,613 77,387 33,026 44,361 8,742 7,507 1,235 83,669 32,584 51,085 6,809 4,907 1,903 78,485 36,952 41,533 17.9%Belgium 19,613 13,690 5,923 87,279 43,517 43,763 12,052 8,011 4,041 54,146 27,501 26,645 9,835 5,787 4,049 51,420 25,492 25,928 -31.6%BulgariaCroatiaCyprus 1,704 1,342 362 13,199 5,525 7,675 1,028 899 129 14,089 6,847 7,242 1,370 851 519 9,744 2,487 7,257 43.2%Czech Republic 6,992 3,778 3,214 53,332 16,359 36,973 7,120 5,387 1,733 70,648 30,313 40,335 5,918 3,299 2,619 57,911 20,490 37,421 -18.5%Denmark 6,429 5,059 1,370 55,055 26,104 28,951 2,304 49,436Estonia Finland 6,574 5,146 1,427 25,577 4,525 21,052 3,743 2,726 1,017 21,722 6,362 15,360 3,622 2,300 1,322 26,141 8,716 17,425 -7.4%France 155,681 93,639 62,042 329,575 113,980 215,595 126,144 79,797 46,347 374,264 157,828 216,436 111,480 70,578 40,902 417,943 173,045 244,898 -34.1%Germany 28,969 20,612 8,357 726,044 317,975 408,069 33,337 25,390 7,947 718,052 319,732 398,320 -4.9%Greece 11,190 7,791 3,400 70,123 31,638 38,485 6,802 4,386 2,416 64,877 29,727 35,150 3,202 2,108 1,094 59,207 29,081 30,126 -67.8%Hungary 6,660 2,438 4,222 51,884 15,292 36,592 4,675 53,671 20,041 38,305 5,078 2,027 3,051 56,818 21,434 35,385 -27.7%Ireland 14,386 7,903 6,483 49,938 17,341 32,597 9,876 6,333 3,542 55,142 23,624 31,518 10,280 5,422 4,859 52,239 24,578 27,661 -25.1%Italy 48,282 40,409 7,873 401,615 235,625 165,989 17,839 16,100 1,739 393,699 217,280 176,420 17,011 13,853 3,158 387,818 217,708 170,110 -59.9%Latvia 1,762 495 1,267 12,435 3,923 8,511 1,732 13,027 2,601 942 1,658 13,986 3,895 10,091 30.9%LithuaniaLuxembourg 990 925 65 15,488 8,270 7,218 1,077 943 134 22,608 13,116 9,492 714 513 201 16,972 9,235 7,737 211.5%Malta 947 811 136 3,751 1,421 2,330 1,358 947 411 4,258 1,488 2,770 1,440 788 652 4,942 2,024 2,919 379.4%Netherlands 14,632 11,696 2,936 127,460 63,543 63,917 22,963 18,857 4,107 125,390 75,554 49,837 26,082 19,079 7,003 115,516 70,544 44,972 138.5%Poland 21,590 11,946 9,643 249,512 65,263 184,248 32,140 14,696 17,444 217,742 63,105 154,637 26,384 13,143 13,241 229,371 60,908 168,463 37.3%Portugal 10,618 9,131 1,486 49,943 27,588 22,355 12,883 9,593 3,290 61,918 34,734 27,185 121.4%RomaniaSlovakia 3,782 2,579 1,203 25,931 7,864 18,067 2,452 29,527 3,215 22,610Slovenia 1,155 702 454 12,999 3,490 9,509 1,258 721 537 13,026 4,378 8,648 2,112 1,118 994 9,869 3,013 6,855 119.1%Spain 55,115 43,354 11,761 288,281 160,103 128,178 58,960 39,641 19,319 197,130 101,698 95,432 52,949 28,667 24,283 208,403 99,916 108,486 106.5%Sweden 4,793 3,266 1,527 50,030 22,855 27,175 5,553 3,531 2,022 47,792 20,454 27,338 5,218 2,755 2,463 54,497 24,889 29,608 61.3%United Kingdom 219,983 143,023 76,960 542,584 239,138 303,446 105,189 73,417 31,772 429,451 205,932 223,519 90,214 65,383 24,831 438,946 234,465 204,481 -67.7%

2007 2013 2016ISCO1



ISCO2-9Other


ISCO2-9Other


64.1, banking Change 2007/16

in %ISCO 1

Executivestotal male female total male female total male female total male female total male female total male female Female (pp)

EU 10 15.48% 76.74% 23.27% 84.52% 42.91% 57.09% 16.12% 68.88% 27.94% 83.88% 43.20% 56.65% 16.70% 70.40% 29.60% 83.30% 43.29% 56.71% 6.33AustriaBelgium 5.1% 79.9% 20.1% 94.9% 50.8% 49.2% 5.6% 75.9% 24.1% 94.4% 48.3% 51.7% 5.4% 74.5% 25.5% 94.6% 47.8% 52.2% 5.40BulgariaCroatiaCyprus 5.9% 78.3% 21.7% 94.1% 45.9% 54.1% 4.5% 75.7% 24.3% 95.5% 41.9% 58.1% 4.1% 72.0% 28.0% 95.9% 38.4% 61.6% 6.32Czech RepublicDenmark 2.2% 84.6% 15.4% 97.8% 46.8% 53.2% 6.8% 75.0% 25.0% 93.2% 49.0% 51.0% 5.2% 77.2% 22.8% 94.8% 50.9% 49.1% 7.39Estonia Finland 8.8% 64.7% 35.3% 91.2% 18.7% 81.3% 5.6% 56.3% 43.8% 94.4% 27.5% 72.5% 5.7% 57.1% 42.9% 94.3% 30.2% 69.8% 7.58France* 54.9% 55.4% 44.6% 45.1% 28.2% 71.8% 56.2% 54.7% 45.3% 43.8% 27.7% 72.3% 61.1% 52.9% 47.1% 38.9% 27.1% 72.9% 2.48Germany GreeceHungaryIrelandItaly 2.2% 88.8% 11.4% 97.8% 55.2% 44.8% 2.3% 59.3% 8.8% 97.7% 53.9% 44.7% 2.1% 86.2% 13.8% 97.9% 54.1% 46.0% 2.46LatviaLithuaniaLuxembourg 32.9% 73.8% 26.2% 67.1% 43.0% 57.0% 34.0% 72.6% 27.4% 66.0% 43.9% 56.1% 36.3% 70.3% 29.7% 63.7% 44.3% 55.7% 3.51Malta 2.8% 97.5% 2.5% 97.2% 45.7% 54.3% 3.6% 84.1% 15.9% 96.4% 40.2% 59.8% 2.6% 81.2% 18.8% 97.5% 39.3% 60.7% 16.36NetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain 29.6% 80.3% 19.7% 70.4% 50.9% 49.1% 30.2% 73.9% 26.1% 69.8% 53.5% 46.5% 32.3% 73.2% 26.8% 67.7% 53.2% 46.8% 7.16Sweden 10.4% 63.9% 36.0% 89.6% 43.8% 56.2% 12.2% 61.4% 38.6% 87.8% 46.2% 53.8% 12.3% 59.4% 40.6% 87.7% 47.5% 52.5% 4.60United Kingdom*France: data of 2012 instead of 2007. Data for France covers only banks under collective agreement AFB. In these kind of banks (about 50% of the total), there are more Executives than Non-Executives.

2007 2013 2016ISCO1



ISCO2-9Other


ISCO2-9Other

Level of hierarchy

Comments:For information on the level of hierarchy (by gender), we used again data from the LFS, Labour Force Survey from Eurostat. Complete data was not available for all countries (orange cells) and some figures were obtained by calculations of Kantar (yellow cells). Some figures were corrected (green cells), according to plausibility checks of the data. In this case the figures for male were changed with the figures for female, as they were obviously mixed up.

For EU28 in 2016, the largest group is still the clerks with 1.3 million employees, but with a decrease of 32% compared to 2007. Also the managers show a decrease of 33% from 663 K to 443 K. The only increase could be noted in the group of professionals with 87% up to 1.0 mio. employees.

Executives:The share of executives is varying and ranges from 4% in Luxembourg, Italy and Germany to 23% in Malta and 21% in France in 2016. The EU average amounts to 12%. We can observe a decrease of the share of executives in 13 countries vs an increase in 8 countries. There is no data for 7 countries. The largest decline of the share of executives was in UK, France and Greece (- 8 to -12pp), vs the largest increase of executives in Slovenia and the Netherlands (+8 to +9.5 pp).

The ESP data differ partly from the LFS data. This should be verified if possible.

Female Executives:The share of female executives varies from 19% in Italy to 64% in Latvia in LFS data. The shares in Latvia and Hungary should be verified, due to their questionable high values. We observe a total decrease of female executives for EU21 of -63 700 (-29%) compared to a decrease of male executives of -155 800 (-35%) from 2007 to 2016. Looking at the relative shares of female executives, Slovenia shows the largest decrease (-14 pp) whereas Malta (+31 pp) and Spain (+25 pp) show the largest increase since 2007. Six countries show a decrease, whereas 13 countries show an increase in the share of female executives. EU28 average has a small increase of +2 pp.

The ESP data differ partly from the LFS data. This should be verified if possible.

Concluding, there is a strong variation between the countries concerning the shares of executives and also female executives. ESP and LFS data varies. LFS shows mainly a decrease in the shares of executives, ESP mainly an increase. Concerning the female executives both sources display mainly an increase in the shares. Furthermore the definitions per country for "executives" in the ESP data should be further analysed and compared to the LFS definition.

Level of hierarchy

Total figures 2007 2016 total change % changeService workers and elementary occupations 89,974 112,640 22,666 25%Clerical support workers (clerks) 1,848,214 1,250,147 -598,067 -32%Technician and associate professionals 957,195 868,553 -88,642 -9%Professionals 545,967 1,022,668 476,701 87%Managers/ Executives 663,239 443,782 -219,457 -33%Totals 4,104,589 3,697,790 -406,799 -10%

Level of hierarchy: Female Executives

Back to content

9. Pay structure (Fix / Variable Pay) SES Source: Eurostat/SES

NACE K Change 2006/14fix variable fix variable fix variable variable (pp)

EU 28 79.51% 20.49% 82.78% 17.22% 85.86% 14.14% -6.35Austria 77.14% 22.86% 78.99% 21.01% 79.18% 20.82% -2.04Belgium 86.00% 14.00% 88.38% 11.62% 92.10% 7.90% -6.10Bulgaria 89.04% 10.96% 90.48% 9.52% 90.38% 9.62% -1.34Croatia 94.30% 5.70%Cyprus 91.93% 8.07% 91.08% 8.92% 92.56% 7.44% -0.63Czech Republic 91.14% 8.86% 87.97% 12.03% 86.78% 13.22% 4.36Denmark 97.84% 2.16% 98.25% 1.75% 97.81% 2.19% 0.02Estonia 85.29% 14.71% 96.83% 3.17% 96.31% 3.69% -11.02Finland 92.19% 7.81% 91.47% 8.53% 90.87% 9.13% 1.32France 84.66% 15.34% 85.12% 14.88% 83.92% 16.08% 0.74Germany 84.20% 15.80% 85.42% 14.58% 83.91% 16.09% 0.29Greece 82.32% 17.68% 79.59% 20.41% 83.71% 16.29% -1.40Hungary 85.35% 14.65% 84.68% 15.32% 88.25% 11.75% -2.90Ireland 87.08% 12.92% 90.99% 9.01%Italy 87.00% 13.00% 83.51% 16.49% 84.95% 15.05% 2.05Latvia 80.78% 19.22% 92.17% 7.83% 91.56% 8.44% -10.78Lithuania 88.91% 11.09% 93.61% 6.39% -4.70Luxembourg 80.21% 19.79% 82.35% 17.65% 81.31% 18.69% -1.10Malta 85.15% 14.85% 91.37% 8.63% 94.67% 5.33% -9.52Netherlands 88.21% 11.79% 79.68% 20.32%Poland 93.77% 6.23% 93.94% 6.06% 6.06Portugal 76.81% 23.19% 80.39% 19.61% 85.35% 14.65% -8.54Romania 90.30% 9.70% 90.45% 9.55% 92.42% 7.58% -2.12Slovakia 90.93% 9.07% 93.25% 6.75% 94.65% 5.35% -3.71Slovenia 85.96% 14.04% 89.94% 10.06% 92.20% 7.80% -6.24Spain 72.19% 27.81% 81.19% 18.81% 82.18% 17.82% -9.99Sweden 87.67% 12.33% 92.71% 7.29% 94.65% 5.35% -6.99United Kingdom 69.36% 30.64% 76.91% 23.09% 83.12% 16.88% -13.76

Please mind the definition of fixed and variable paydata is missing

2006 2010 2014

Comments: For the structure of variable and fixed pay, we focused on the ESP members data, as these data was more banking specific and available for the requested years 2007, 2013 and 2016. A limitation was that we could cover only 10 countries with this data.

As a comparison we used the SES (Structure of Earnings Survey) from Eurostat The restrictions of this survey were a) Only for NACE-Code K available (whole financial sector including banking and insurance)b) Only for the years 2006, 2010 and 2014 available.

Results:In the ESP members data, the share of variable pay varied from 0% in Malta and Cyprus to 17% in Spain in 2016. The EU average amounts to 7%. The overall decrease of variable pay in the available countries amounted to -2.2 pp.

SES: In the SES data, the share of variable pay varied also a lot from 2% in Denmark to 21% in Austria in 2014. EU average amounted to 14%. The EU average shows a decrease in variable pay of -6.35 pp between 2006 and 2014.

Concluding, there is a decrease of variable pay in both data sources, but the ESP members data shows in general a lower level of variable pay (ESP: 7% to LFS: 14% in 2016), also in the past.


64.1, banking Change 2007/16fix variable fix variable fix variable variable (pp)

EU 10 76.04% 9.68% 91.28% 8.32% 92.52% 7.48% -2.20Austria BelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCyprus 100.00% 0.00% 99.98% 0.02% 99.88% 0.12% 0.12Czech RepublicDenmark 94.80% 5.20% 94.90% 5.10% 95.20% 4.80% -0.40EstoniaFinland 92.80% 7.20% 88.80% 11.20% 88.40% 11.60% 4.40France* 86.30% 13.70% 86.00% 14.00% 86.70% 13.30% -0.40Germany 93.95% 6.05% 94.19% 5.81% 94.17% 5.83% -0.22GreeceHungaryIrelandItaly 90.00% 10.00% 94.93% 5.07% 95.90% 4.10% -5.90Latvia 70.00% 30.00% 93.00% 7.00% 92.00% 8.00% -22.00LithuaniaLuxembourgMalta 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00NetherlandsPoland 84.00% 12.00%PortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain 81.44% 18.56% 83.42% 16.58% 16.58Sweden 90.70% 9.30% 95.60% 4.40% 97.00% 3.00% -6.30United Kingdom*France: data of 2012 instead of 2007

20162007 2013

Back to content

10. Reasons for job losses Eurofound/ERM Source: Eurofound

Banking industry01/2007-12/ 2016total figures Total of Job Gain Total of Job Loss Internal restructurin M&A Bancruptcy Offshoring Outsourcing Other Job Loss / GainEU28 71,279 -417,995 343,478 51,537 17,144 4,556 334 946 -346,716Austria 100 -5,825 5,575 100 150 -5,725Belgium 4,580 -17,154 15,641 170 1,278 65 -12,574Bulgaria 200 200Croatia -1,124 1,124 -1,124Cyprus -1,745 1,614 131 -1,745Czech Republic 3,377 -1,805 1,805 1,572Denmark -4,241 3,491 150 600 -4,241Estonia 100 100Finland 220 -2,777 2,527 250 -2,557France 8,187 -23,604 22,174 490 940 -15,417Germany 3,510 -55,170 45,145 7,500 2,525 -51,660Greece 411 -18,832 17,772 460 600 -18,421Hungary 150 -2,551 2,206 130 215 -2,401Ireland 2,417 -6,823 5,767 1,056 -4,406Italy 7,750 -61,227 49,789 9,671 1,767 -53,477Latvia -1,189 1,189 -1,189Lithuania 3,484 -1,448 552 896 2,036Luxembourg -1,391 888 354 149 -1,391Malta 600 -130 130 470Netherlands -35,230 27,270 5,900 2,000 60 -35,230Poland 21,128 -28,745 23,082 5,400 263 -7,617Portugal -6,226 4,246 1,680 300 -6,226Romania 1,800 -4,520 4,520 -2,720Slovakia -700 700 -700Slovenia 254 -1,638 1,638 -1,384Spain 930 -34,862 21,718 12,237 907 -33,932Sweden 220 -2,810 1,480 200 1,130 -2,590United Kingdom 11,861 -96,228 82,559 7,185 3,896 2,319 269 -84,367

Total 71,279 -417,995 343,478 51,537 17,144 4,556 334 946 -346,716

Comments: In the European Restructuring Monitor (ERM), set up by Eurofound, the impact of large scale restructuring events was monitored since 2002. For this project, the events from January 2007 to December 2016 were analysed for EU28.The data is based on announcements in national media sources and records job losses and gains and the published reasons for it. Since 12/2002 to date more than 1.400 events have been recorded in the financial sector. Between 1/2007 and 12/2016 738 cases of job loss and 261 cases of job gains have been recorded (999 in total).

As the main reason for job loss they disclose "internal restructuring" with 82% . We see problems with this result as a) Only published redundancies are included in the statistic. b) Internal restructuring is from our point of view more a consequence than a reason, therefore we conducted a survey among the ESP members to get further indications.

Back to content

11. Ranking of Reasons for Restructuring ESP members Source: Questionnaires to ESP members/ 10-12/2017

2017/18

# number of points

Financial crisis

Market forces

Digitali-sation

RegulationCustomer demand

Manage-ment errors

Fraud and Manipula-tion

Bank Consoli-dation /Merger

Early retirement schemes

Choices of management and owners, pressure of ROE increase

Employers dissatisfaction with the quality of performance

EU - total 122 98 95 80 62 51 45 18 10 10 7AustriaBelgium 9 10 8BulgariaCroatia 10 8 6 7 9Cyprus 10 9 7 6 5 8Czech RepubliDenmarkEstonia Finland 9 8 18 16 19 10FranceGermany 8 10 10 9 9 6 7GreeceHungaryIrelandItaly 18 14 12 8 10 16 20Latvia 9 8 10 4 6 5 3 7LithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsPoland 10 9 8 9PortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSlovenia 10Spain 28 15 13 13 5 9 15 9 10Sweden 10 8 7 9United Kingdom

Total 122 98 95 80 62 51 45 18 10 10 7Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. Ranking of Reasons for Restructuring ESP members Source: Questionnaires to ESP members/ 10-12/2017

Explanations/ Reasons (in short)

more indirect impact, bank liquidation; Increased need for compliance and regulation etc;

Interest rates, merger; increased competition with new fin-techs;

More efficiency due to digitalisation, automation

as a consequence of the financial crisis; increased costs and efforts

driven by digitalisation

difficult to evaluate

increased costs but no major factor

Merger

Comments: The ESP members stated from 10/2017 to 12/2017 the most important triggers or reasons for internal restructuring which induced job losses in their country. The results derive out of 15 questionnaires.The most important reason got 10 points, the second 9, the third 8 and so on. The number of points were added up. Reasons were ranked accordingly by the largest number of points. The explanations for the decisions are summarized out of 4 questionnaires at the bottom of the table. (The other questionnaires did not contain any explanations).

The financial crisis, market forces, digitalisation and regulation were described to be the main trigger.

Back to content

12. Reasons for Restructuring ESP members data & expert interviews Source 1: Questionnaires to ESP members 10-12/2017

2017/2018

Summary Germany France SpainQ1. Financial crisis was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

1. More indirect impact through increased cost pressure caused by stricter regulations, changed policies, mergers etc. than direct impact.2. Job losses were more eminent after bust of dotcom bubble, than after financial crisis.3. Bank liquidations after the crisis, decreased branches and employees.

If we regard stricter regulation as a consequence of the financial crisis, the crisis has a significant impact on employment due to increased cost pressure (see below). However, the direct influence of the financial crisis (2008) on employment was limited as employment remained relatively stable in the first years after the crisis. Job losses in the financial industry after the burst of dotcom bubble (2000) were much larger than after the financial crisis.

This is not the only factor. Three major factors of transformation exert a pressure on the bank in the medium and long term: - historically low interest rates that impact the remunerations of institutions. The effects are negative: the average remuneration of outstanding credits is down and will remain at low rates for several years, hence a GDP without an increase, - regulation which increases costs and promotes the emergence of competition, - the technological innovation that modifies the customer relationship and fosters the arrival of new competitors.

The last financial crisis is one important factor, however job losses caused by the recent financial crisis don’t look quite as horrifying. Drastic job losses have been in recent years also previous to the financial crisis in Spain at least in our sector.

Q2. Market forces was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

1. One important factor are historically low interest rates that impact the remunerations of institutions. The effects are negative: the average remuneration of outstanding credits is down and will remain at low rates for several years, combined with a GDP without increase. Banks have to introduce fees and to find other sources of financing.2. Consolidations and restructurings after many mergers and acquisitions caused major employee reductions.3. Some countries, e.g. Germany are simply "overbanked", which puts enormous pressure on costs.

Compared to their competitors in Europe and worldwide, German banks still underperform in key performance indicators such as cost-effectiveness and profitability. Moreover, Germany is still considered as "overbanked". Regarding the enormous cost pressure due to digitalisation, regulation and changed customer behaviour, the need for restructuring and consolidation will last for many years. On the other hand, there is increased competition e.g. by Fin-techs.Especially German Banks are affected by the zero interest rates, which forced them to introduce fees, which is new to Germany but common to many other European countries.

Beside other forces, historically low interest rates impact the remunerations of institutions. The effects are negative: the average remuneration of outstanding credits is down and will remain at low rates for several years, also a GDP without an increase.

I agree, because employment statistics are at the heart of many EU policies.

Internal reductions of workforce on the banking sector are also due to restructurings after mergers and acquisitions proceedings among Spanish Banks.

Q3. Digitalisation was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

1. Digitalisation already changes business models considerably and will do so in an intensified way over the next years,2. Technological innovation modifies the customer relationship and fosters the arrival of new competitors.3. Especially in retail banking, we witness enormous redundancies driven by digitalisation.4. Employment gains by new job profiles will not compensate the job losses.5. It fosters the arrival of new, non-banking competitors, e.g. Fintechs.

Digitalisation already changes business models considerably and will do so in an intensified way over the next years, e.g. Robo Advisors, artificial intelligence, digital central staff functions, e.g. in HR. In retail banking, we already witness enormous redundancies driven by digitalisation. Other business areas will follow soon. Employment gains by new functions developing due to digitalisation will probably not rudimentary compensate the job losses in other divisions.

It is not a question of job destruction but of sound job changes. Digitalisation is a major factor for the future of banking institutions. It brings opportunities in the customer relationship, it should allow to increase productivity and performance in internal processes and it improves knowledge of the customer portfolio and its needs. At the same time, it fosters the arrival of new competitors.

It´s one important factor but the workers affected don’t end up unemployed, but rather move to a different occupation. Such job polarization contributes to increased economic inequality. Technology is one of the key drivers of long-term economic growth.

From 10/2017 to 12/2017 a questionnaire was distributed among the members of the Social partners in 28 EU countries. One question was the reason for internal restructuring and herewith job loss since 2007. In February 2018 Kantar conducted short interviews among banking experts in 5 major European countries again about the reasons for internal restructuring to deepen the topic. The results were combined and displayed in the following.

Digitalisation, Market forces and Regulation were described as the main reasons. The Financial crisis was stated as to be important but more indirectly e.g. because it caused higher regulation.Please mind the yellow coloured Summary section at the beginning of each row!

Back to content

12. Reasons for Restructuring

2017/2018

Q1. Financial crisis was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

Q2. Market forces was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

Q3. Digitalisation was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

2. Interviews among banking experts in 5 countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland), 2/2018

Poland Italy Sweden (quest.) Croatia (quest.)Financial crisis was an important factor, but in Poland it had an indirect impact. Poland was not hit by the crisis directly. Polish banking sector was influenced indirectly, because international banks operating in Poland were in trouble in their home countries. They had to undergo restructuring, and this had an impact on Polish banks. E.g. KBC (Belgium) or AIB (Ireland) have sold their branches in Poland to other owners (who decided to restructure the branches to their needs).

The financial crisis and the real economy crisis, which has involved thecountry at all levels, has deeply influenced banks operational processes,which, in the meantime, had to adapt to the new regulation, mainlyEuropean, and to its parameters.

Increased need for compliance etc. Bank liquidation

I agree. There are more and more financial products in the market. The customers are more educated, and require more sophisticated services, also available almost around the clock. To meet their needs and stay competitive on the market, banks have to restructure internally, and change the profiles of their employees. Besides, there are several types of institutions offering financial products which are not under the same regulations in all EU countries (e.g. fin-techs).

Increased competition with new fin-techs Decrease in number of branches, merger

I agree. This is related to marketing issues. To be able to compete successfully with other market players, and to offer more sophisticated products, banks (and other financial institutions) have to introduce digitalization. Especially in activities which are repeatable, Also, introducing IT analytical tools reduces time and excludes human errors, which in turn influences the role of analyst.

Digitalisation is changing significantly (faster than expected) the relation withcustomers and the networking and business models;

in the meantime, the same factors have opened markets to new non traditional competitors increasing competitiveness in the sector and recallingthe important issue of having an adequate level playing field from theregulatory point of view in order to avoid an asymmetric alteration ofcompetitiveness.

More efficiency due to digitalisation

Summary Germany France SpainQ4. Regulation was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

1. Regulation has a significant impact due to increased costs.2. Directive Basel III increased requirements on the equity ratio, which ties up capital.3. PSD2, the European Payment Service Directive, forces the banks to disclose customer and account data which increases competition e.g. of Fintechs.4. Regulation has complicated the customer service process due to higher requirements in documentation.

The stricter regulation has a significant impact on employment due to increased cost pressure. 1. Almost every working process in banks has become more expensive due to regulation-driven increased time and effort. Banks have to realise all possible savings, typically starting with their biggest cost pool which is labour costs. 2. Stronger pressure due to increased requirements on the equity ratio due to new regulations e.g. Basel III, also 3. the new Payment Services Directive (PSD2) since January 2018, which forces the banks to disclose their customer and account data to third party providers, which increases the competition e.g. by Fintechs.4. Regulation has complicated the customer service process due to higher requirements in documentation.5. The proprietary trading of banks was also limited by regulation, which was one of the positive developments.

The main effect of the regulation has been to increase costs and to favour the arrival of competing non-banking players.

The new European directives and thus the creation of facilitated approvals provide a favourable framework for non-bank players. Fintechs, for example, can offer their services in less restrictive settings than banks with reduced costs. This is particularly the case in the field of payment processing.

The new and more restricted regulations are consequences of the financial crisis. Policy-makers have sought to rectify the damage done to the financial systems and economies by enacting a large set of financial reforms, both at the international and domestic level.

Some companies have long complained that spending money following rules means there’s less left over to invest in research or expand their businesses however others argue that getting rid of regulations will directly create jobs. Economists who have studied the matter say that there is little evidence that regulations cause massive job loss in the economy, and that rolling them back would not lead to a boom in job creation. It would be necessary to quantify in each company or sector.

Q5. Customer demand was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why. (only members questionnaire)

1. Changed customer demand and behaviour is significantly driven by digitalisation.2. Effect will become more important in the next years.

As the change of customer demand and behaviour (especially the sharp increase of self deciders in financial affairs and the sharp decrease of customer loyalty) is significantly driven by digitalisation, the influence of customer demand on employment is remarkable. We expect this factor to become even more important within the next years.

Q6. Management Errors was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why. (only members questionnaire)

1. There are effects, especially before and after the crisis, but it is difficult to evaluate them.

There have been partly considerable management errors in financial industry especially before and after financial crisis. However, it seems almost impossible to number the effect these errors had or still have on the banks and the employment - aside from the diagnosis that the impact of management decisions often cannot be seen immediately, often only after years or decades. In this respect, we are unable to evaluate this factor seriously.

Q7. Fraud and Manipulation was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why. (only members questionnaire)

1. Increased costs but importance will decrease within the next years.

Although fraud and manipulation caused high penalties and thereby increased costs over the last years, the importance of this factor for the cost structure and following pressure on employment will probably decrease within the next years.

Q8. Which one of the above factors would you assess to be the most important factor to induce internal restructuring and herewith job loss?

1. Digitalisation and market forces seem to be the most important factors followed by regulation. 2. The impact of the financial crisis is more indirect than direct.

Market Forces, Digitalisation and Regulation are the most important factors which induced job reductions. Also customer demand plays an important role, but this is a part of market forces. As the change of customer demand and behaviour (especially the sharp increase of self deciders in financial affairs and the sharp decrease of customer loyalty) is significantly driven by digitalisation, the influence of customer demand on employment is remarkable. We expect this factor to become even more important within the next years.

Digitalisation seems to be the most impacting element. Technological developments are likely to transform organizations; It will affect management and skill needs. The banking institutions can gain opportunities out of their physical network by providing value-added services.

All the above factors induce internal restructuring and herewith job loss depending on the companies and sectors of the Economy, so I couldn’t suggest which of them it´s the most important. This should be suggested by an Economic expert.

Q4. Regulation was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why.

Q5. Customer demand was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why. (only members questionnaire)

Q6. Management Errors was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why. (only members questionnaire)

Q7. Fraud and Manipulation was named as one important factor impacting internal restructuring resp. job losses. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain why. (only members questionnaire)

Q8. Which one of the above factors would you assess to be the most important factor to induce internal restructuring and herewith job loss?

Poland Italy Sweden (quest.) Croatia (quest.)I agree. Although I would rather say that adding new regulations in the banking sector rather creates jobs than limits them. There are more and more data and information to be prepared and sent to various authorities and institutions, and these have to be prepared by additional staff rather.

Banks had to adapt to new regulations, mainly European, and to its parameters as a consequence of the financial crisis.

As a consequence of the financial crisis Some bank didn't reach prescribed conditions

The customers are more educated, and require more sophisticated services, also available almost around the clock.

I would rather say market forces and digitalizat The factors mentioned under points 1-4 (financial crisis, market forces, digitalization, regulation) have greatly influenced employment in the banking sector, either on a quantitative and qualitative basis. It is difficult to state which have been the principal or secondary factors.

Summary Germany France SpainQ9. It might be sometimes difficult to separate the different factors from each other, because they seem partly to be connected and to influence each other, e.g. financial crisis and regulation. What do you think about this thesis/speculation, do you see any connections?

There is a lot of interdependency between the main factors, which influence each other.1. Stricter regulations are a consequence of the financial crisis.2. Customer demand is part of market forces and triggers digitalisation.3. Digitalisation increases IT-costs, market and innovation pressure.4. New competitors due to digitalisation but also regulation changing the shape of the market.

We have a lot of multiple overlaps and connections which influence each other. As mentioned already, if we regard stricter regulation as a consequence of the financial crisis, the crisis has a significant impact on employment due to increased cost pressure. Also digitalisation and market forces. Digitalisation leads to higher automation that intensifies the market pressure. The change of customer demand to more digital offers influences and changes the market significantly and enhances also the market pressure. More digitalisation increases the IT-costs and also the innovation pressure.

This is indeed an interdependency of the main factors that are: low interest rates / changes in customer habits / regulation / digitalisation / the arrival of new competitors such as GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon).The GAFAs could position themselves as new leaders of banking intermediation, which can cause banks to lose direct access to their private customers and become simple service providers to GAFA (BtoB).

I can see connections because the new and more restricted regulations are consequences of the financial crisis. Policy-makers have sought to rectify the damage done to the financial systems and economies by enacting a large set of financial reforms, both at the international and domestic level. The informal group of regulators and central bank experts that had been meeting in Basel prior to the crisis became more formal in April 2009 through the establishment of the Financial Stability Board (FSB).

Q10. What are your expectations about the further development of the employee figures in the banking industry (on one hand for your country, on the other hand for Europe)? Please explain why?

1. The pressure on the market, which leads to restructuring and consolidation will remain, so a further continuous decline is to be expected. 2. Further big mergers within the countries but also within European banks are to be expected. 3. New skill needs among the employees will evolve and organizations have to adapt.

The pressure on the market, which leads to restructuring and consolidation will remain, so a further continuous decline is to be expected. The private banks have already reduced employees and branches by 1/3 due to overcapacities, and we expect a similar development with the savings and cooperative banks. We anticipate further big mergers between the savings and cooperative banks in the short run and between private banks comparable to Commerzbank /Dresdner Bank or Deutsche Bank/Postbank in the long run. Also m&a's between big European banks, comparable to the acquisition of HypoVereinsbank by Unicredit, are thinkable in the next 5 to 10 years.

Ongoing changes will not only impact skill needs, but they will also induce an adaptation of the organization. Organizational agility will be important. Faced with the challenge of the pace of change, the evolution of skills needed and the quantitative impacts and levers on the workforce side, it is essential to consider that human resources topics are more than ever a key issue in the development of the strategic pathway of the institutions.

As you will know the slow pace of recovery from the financial and economic crisis and mounting evidence of rising unemployment led the European Commission to make a set of proposals on 18 April 2012 for measures to boost jobs through a dedicated employment package, so I hope this will contribute to increase the employment in the bank industry and the rest of the Economic sectors.

Q11. Please give further comments and explanations on the past development (since 2007) of certain sectors in the banking industry from your point of view. What were the reasons?

1. Simpler activities were already either outsourced or automated, e.g. for payment transactions and loan processing.2. Alliances of joint data centres reduce the needed IT-experts, as one expert serves several centres.3. In the past traditional banking was most developed, currently the trend goes more into asset management, private and corporate banking and internet banking. 4. In some countries, the workforce remained relatively stable, e.g. in France but in others we had tremendous reductions, e.g. in Germany and Spain.

There is a trend, that simpler activities are either outsourced or automated. This was the case for example for payment transactions and loan processing.There are already alliances of joint data centres, e.g. between the savings and cooperative banks. So you need only one person serving several branches.The current level of automation is different. At the moment it is higher for the private banks than for the savings banks, but in the end everyone will be equally affected.

The workforce remained relatively stable in France despite the 2008 and 2012 crises. (Only a small decrease of 2-5%).But nevertheless, the banking sector is undergoing major transformations. The qualitative changes will be strong and will affect the business, organization and management. The quantitative impacts are not quantifiable.

In the past, traditional banking was the most developed area in the banking industry (in terms of external network) and currently the banking industry tries to specialize in asset management, private and corporate banking and internet banking according to the new European rules and regulations.

Q9. It might be sometimes difficult to separate the different factors from each other, because they seem partly to be connected and to influence each other, e.g. financial crisis and regulation. What do you think about this thesis/speculation, do you see any connections?

Q10. What are your expectations about the further development of the employee figures in the banking industry (on one hand for your country, on the other hand for Europe)? Please explain why?

Q11. Please give further comments and explanations on the past development (since 2007) of certain sectors in the banking industry from your point of view. What were the reasons?

Poland Italy Sweden (quest.) Croatia (quest.)Financial crisis is a phenomenon that repeats in economy from time to time (with different reasons). New regulations impose changes in organization structure and behaviour. They impose introduction of new principles and rules, new formulas, new policies and new obligations (documents and calculations). This requires employing persons who would do the calculations and document (data) preparation. This brings change in business models and change in the profiles of certain groups of employees.

We share the judgement of a interconnection of the various selected factors.This situation has forced banks to promote policies of cost retention and togive effect to significant reorganization and restructuring processes whichmeans a increasing digitalization of processes and of banking operations: thismeans also a change in “how you work”.

Seeing the complexity of banking business and the priorities of younger generations, there will be a tendency to move some of the business into internet and reduce employment in customer service. Although I would not expect that bank branches completely disappear. There may be less of them, and they can be reoriented, but still in the end people want to talk to people

The abovementioned tendencies in banking activity mean stable and deep changes in the organization and composition of revenues which induce to reflect on the fact that pre-crisis levels of employment in sector will never be reached again.

Regulations and rules introduced at EU and domes Constant reduction of bank branches, which means a different relationship with customers who operate through remote and online means, has changed working time and place. In the last year, thanks also to primary legislation, we have envisaged a huge increase, also through collective agreements, in any dimension of bank, of the so called “smart working”, that is work performed with criteria of ample flexibility in relation with time and place of working performance.

Working posts which will become central are the commercial ones; in new activities linked to big data and digitalization in general, it is foreseeable an increase in employment whilst it can be envisaged a decrease in administrative and executive posts.

Summary Germany France SpainQ12. Please give further comments and explanations on the anticipated development of certain sectors in the banking industry from your point of view. What are the reasons?

There will be cross-sectoral changes. 1. There will be further consolidation (e.g. in Germany) in the mid term for savings and cooperative banks, but later also among private banks, which will affect employment.2. Changes in digital technologies will on one hand decrease employment but will bring in turn new job profiles and new skill needs. The new jobs will not compensate the reductions.3. A new regulation, under discussion is "The European Deposit Guarantee Fund", would mean that European banks are liable to each other for deposits. This would tie up capital and have in turn a negative effect on business and transactions.4. The individualization of the customer will cause the need for new business models. It will lead to more opportunities for differentiation and provide a chance for a high-quality, specialized advice and consulting. In this context, there will also arise new opportunities in the area of product development.5. Some Fintechs will be taken over by incumbent banks, which will lead to rising employee figures due to integration.

There will be cross-sectoral changes. 1. Changes in digital technologies will be most noticeable, including effects on employment. 2. The individualization of the customer will lead to more opportunities for differentiation and provide a chance for a high-quality, specialized advice and consulting. In this context, there will also be new opportunities in the area of product development.3. There will be further consolidation especially for savings banks and cooperative banks, but later also among private banks, which will reduce employment.4. Fintechs will be taken over by incumbent banks, which will on the other hand lead to rising employee figures.5. A new regulation, which is under discussion is "The European Deposit Guarantee Fund", which means that European banks would be liable to each other for deposits. This would tie up capital and would in turn have a negative effect on business and transactions.

The bank of tomorrow, its role, its employees, the territorial coverage are determining critical strategic issues: The right complementarity between physical network and digital presence will be a decisive factor for a seamless bank.

High value-added businesses (corporate consulting, wealth advice, private banking, etc.) are the professions of tomorrow. These fields of business expertise and consulting, should be able to increase the margins of banking institutions.

The reforms to date, in light of the diagnosis of the crisis, provide some insights into what more might be needed. To identify, evaluate, and prioritize further specific reforms is challenging, however, as the “right” tools can be hard to identify and conceptual and practical issues raise many difficult trade-offs.

There clearly is much “path-dependency” in that reforms undertaken to date can constrain choices going forward and a radical rethinking might not feasible technically or politically. Furthermore, countries differ in many dimensions, suggesting reform choices will vary, possibly greatly.Determining approaches and constraints to reform is nevertheless best done with a clear framework in mind. The general analytical approach in this paper uses can be summarized under three themes: 1. think system-wide and try to explicitly address market failures and externalities; 2. improve incentives, individually and collectively, of all those involved in finance; and, 3. collect more, higher quality data and conduct better analyses of that information. At the same time, the paper stresses the importance of acknowledging that many risks may remain, in part due to unknowns, so one also need to proceed cautiously and plan better for future crises. Banking industry tries to adapt to the new markets in accordance with the new European banking regulation, expanding services to the most type of clients.

Q12. Please give further comments and explanations on the anticipated development of certain sectors in the banking industry from your point of view. What are the reasons?

Poland Italy Sweden (quest.) Croatia (quest.)Regulations and rules introduced at EU and domes Working posts which will become central are the commercial ones; in new

activities linked to big data and digitalization in general, it is foreseeable an increase in employment whilst it can be envisaged a decrease in administrative and executive posts.

In Italy industrial plans related to the next years foresee a turn -over between employment ins and outs, lower to a one to one relation.Alongside with some commentators, it is probable that operations of aggregation will take place, with a overlap of positions.More in general, technology innovation will produce different effects: some professions will loose importance, others will be kept with a modification of the modalities of performance; meanwhile, as mentioned above, new professions directly linked to digitalization, processes, big data and artificial intelligence will be introduced.It must be also considered a progressive consolidation of the European economic growth, even if with different paces.Therefore, it is not feasible to develop quantitative forecasts on future employments, also in consideration of the fastness of actual changes.

Back to content

13. Changes in job profiles (EBB) European Banking Barometer (EBB)Banking industryin %

decrease increase Net change decrease increase Net changeCompliance, risk and finance -9 6 -3 -18 51 33Asset management -12 12 0 -10 33 23Private banking and wealth management -14 14 0 -18 40 21Corporate banking -10 9 -1 -21 25 4Operations and IT -28 3 -25 -47 44 -3Investment banking -21 14 -7 -34 26 -8Retail and business banking -35 9 -26 -51 28 -23Other head-office functions -25 2 -23 -32 5 -27Administration -56 25 -31

2016decrease increase net change decrease increase net change

Compliance, risk and finance -33 -33 22 22Asset management -11 22 11 22 22Private banking and wealth management 11 11 11 11Corporate banking -11 22 11 11 11Operations and IT -44 11 -33 -33 22 -11Investment banking -22 11 -11 0Retail and business banking -44 -44 -33 22 -11Other head-office functions -11 -11 -33 -33Administration -56 -56 -44 -44

decrease increase net change decrease increase net changeCompliance, risk and finance 28 28 20 20Asset management -6 17 11 -4 8 4Private banking and wealth management -11 6 -5 -8 12 4Corporate banking -11 -11 -24 12 -12Operations and IT -33 39 6 -28 16 -12Investment banking -6 6 0 -8 4 -4Retail and business banking -22 6 -16 -40 12 -28Other head-office functions -11 6 -5 -16 -16Administration -33 17 -16 -36 4 -32

decrease increase net change decrease increase net changeCompliance, risk and finance 0 -25 -25Asset management 0 -13 13 0Private banking and wealth management 0 -13 13 0Corporate banking -11 11 0 -25 -25Operations and IT -22 11 -11 -38 -38Investment banking 0 -25 -25Retail and business banking -56 11 -45 -13 13 0Other head-office functions -22 -22 -38 -38Administration -56 -56 -50 -50

EU 11 - 2013 EU 11 - 2016

Ireland

Austria Belgium

Poland Spain

Italy

Source: EY/EBB

decrease increase net change decrease increase net change-8 25 17 -19 9 -10

17 17 -8 6 -2-8 17 9 -6 8 2

8 8 -13 8 -5-8 8 0 -43 9 -34

-17 17 0 -11 2 -9-42 8 -34 -53 4 -49

-8 -8 -13 -13-17 8 -9 -51 8 -43

decrease increase net change decrease increase net change-13 13 0 0

0 00 11 11

13 13 -44 -44-50 13 -37 -22 -22-38 13 -25 -22 -22-25 13 -12 -44 -44-13 -13 -33 -33-13 13 0 -56 11 -45

decrease increase net change-17 24 7-17 14 -3-31 14 -17-21 7 -14-41 21 -20-41 14 -27-24 10 -14-34 7 -27-41 10 -31

UK

France Germany

Netherlands Nordics

Comments: The figures display results from the European Banking Barometer (EBB) of EY from 2013 and 2016. The survey was conducted in 12 EU countries. In 2016, the greatest headcount reductions for the future were anticipated in administration, other head-office functions and retail banking. Recruitment will be focused on growth sectors such as private banking, and wealth and asset management. However, in contrast to 2013, most markets anticipate an increase inheadcount in compliance and risk and finance, which reflects the prioritization of risk and regulation across the industry.Results for Switzerland were not shown as no EU country.

Numbers reflect the percentage of respondents who answered. Respondents answering “Stay the same” or "dont know" are not displayed.

Back to content

14. Changes in job profiles (ESP expert interviews) Source: Interviews with banking experts in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland, 2/2018Banking industry

Feb-18

Q8. When you think about the banking industry in your country and look at the following banking sectors, do you have any indications in which of these areas there has been (since 2007) a decrease or an increase in headcount?

In the last 10 years

Germany France Poland Spain Italy Total increase Total decrease Net changeCompliance, risk and finance 3 2 3 -1 1 9 -1 8Asset management 1 2 0 -3 3 6 -3 3Private banking and wealth managemen 1 2 0 -2 3 6 -2 4Corporate banking -2 0 1 -2 -1 1 -5 -4Operations and IT 1 2 2 -3 -1 5 -4 1Investment banking -3 -2 0 -2 -2 0 -9 -9Retail and business banking -3 -2 0 -3 -2 0 -10 -10Other head-office functions -2 -2 2 -1 0 2 -5 -3Administration -1 -2 -2 0 -2 0 -7 -7*Payment transactions, loan processing -2 -2*Product development

-3 strong decrease3 strong increase0 no change/ n.a.

Q9. Please give further comments and explanations on the past development of certain sectors in the banking industry from your point of view. What were the reasons?

Summary:

1. Simpler activities were already either outsourced or automated, e.g. for payment transactions, loan processing and administration.2. Alliances of joint data centers reduced the needed IT-experts, as one expert serves several centers. In Spain, there were strong reductions amoung IT-experts caused by subcontracting and outsourcing with third parties. 3. In the past traditional banking was most developed, currently the trend goes more into asset management, private and corporate banking and internet banking. 4. In some countries, the workforce remained relatively stable since 2007, e.g. in France and Poland but in others we had tremendous reductions, e.g. in Germany and in Spain.

14. Changes in job profiles (ESP expert interviews) Source: Interviews with banking experts in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland, 2/2018

Q10. Please look at the following banking sectors and try to assess for each sector, if you would anticipate an increase or decrease in headcount in the next 5 to 10 years in your country and why?

In the next 5-10 years

Germany France Poland Spain Italy Total increase Total decrease Net changeCompliance, risk and finance 2 2 3 2 9 0 18Asset management 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1Private banking and wealth managemen 0 2 -2 -2 2 -4 -2Corporate banking -1 0 0 -2 0 -3 -3Operations and IT 2 2 -1 -3 2 6 -4 2Investment banking -1 -2 0 -3 0 -6 -6Retail and business banking -2 -2 3 -1 -2 3 -7 -4Other head-office functions -3 -2 2 -1 2 -6 -4Administration -3 -2 -2 -1 -2 0 -10 -10*Payment transactions, loan processing -3 -3 -3*Product development 2 2 2

-3 strongest decrease3 largest increase0 no change/ n.a.

Q11. Please give further comments and explanations on the anticipated development of certain sectors in the banking industry from your point of view. What are the reasons?

Summary:There will be cross-sectoral changes. 1. We expect further consolidation (e.g. in Germany) in the mid term for savings and cooperative banks, but later also among private banks, which will affect employment.2. Digital technologies and automation affect all areas and will decrease employment (e.g. payment and loan processing, head office and administration) but will bring in turn new job profiles and skill needs, (e.g. product development, IT). The new created jobs will not compensate the reductions. Replacement will be e.g. by Robo Advisors, artificial intelligence, replacement of central staff functions, e.g. in HR etc.3. Regulation will have further impact also in future. It creates new jobs in compliance, risk and finance. A new regulation, under discussion, "The European Deposit Guarantee Fund", would mean that European banks are liable to each other for deposits. This would tie up capital and have in turn a negative effect on business and herewith employment.4. The individualization of the customer (e.g. self-deciders in financial affairs) will cause the need for new business models. It will lead to more opportunities for differentiation and provide a chance for a high-quality, specialized advice and consulting. In this context, there will also arise new opportunities in the area of product development.5. Fintechs will cause rivalry and market pressure, but will also be taken over by incumbent banks, which will lead to rising employee figures due to integration.

Comments 1: The results originate from interviews among ESP banking experts in 5 countries conducted in February 2018 by Kantar.

Explanation of figures:Plus = increase in headcount (green), Minus = decrease in headcount (red).1/-1 = low increase or decrease2/-2 = medium increase or decrease3/-3 = strong increase or decrease 0 = stability or data not available

Comments 2:

ESP banking experts in 5 EU countries estimated for the last 10 years the major job loss in retail and business banking, investment banking and administration. The major job gains were in compliance, asset management and private banking.

For the next 10 years, the experts expect more loss than gain. Gain is expected mainly in compliance and IT, further loss is expected in administration and retail banking. This results correlate, besides the anticipated decrease for IT, to a large extend with the results from the European Banking Barometer (EBB).

The situation differs between the countries. For example, there is loss expected in Spain and Italy and gain in Poland.

Back to content

Sources:

Eurostat LFS (Labor Force Survey): Eurostat or the Statistical Office of the European Communities is an organization within the European Union that collects and collates statistical information relating to member states.The European Labor Force Survey, conducted by Eurostat, started in 1983 in a number of European countries. In general, individual country data is available from their accession date to the EU. The labor force surveys are carried out throughout Europe by the national statistical institutes and the results are processed centrally by Eurostat.Scope: The European Labor Force Survey (EU-LFS) is the largest European household survey. It provides quarterly and annual data on the labor force participation of persons aged 15 and over and also persons who are not workers (inactive persons).Data Collection: The EU-LFS, is based upon a sample of the population. About 1.8 million individuals are interviewed quarterly in the participating countries to obtain statistical information on about 100 variables. The sample rates in the individual countries vary between 0.2% and 3.3%.Coverage: The EU-LFS currently comprises 33 participating countries. Eurostat collects data from the Labor Force Surveys of the 28 Member States of the European Union, three EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) and two candidate countries, namely the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

Link Eurostat-LFS

Eurostat SES (Structure of Earnings Survey): The Structure of Earnings Survey (SES) is a 4-yearly survey which provides EU-wide harmonised structural data on gross earnings, hours paid and annual days of paid holiday leave. The objective is that National Statistical Institutes (NSIs) provide accurate and harmonised data on earnings in EU Member States and other countries for policy-making andresearch purposes.Source: The data collection for the Structure of Earnings Survey can be obtained from 'tailor-made' questionnaires, existing surveys, administrative data or a combination of such sources, which provide the equivalent information. While accepting a degree of flexibility in the means employed for collecting the survey data, the information obtained must be of acceptable quality and be comparable between European countries.Data Collection: The national surveys are generally conducted on the basis of a two-stage random sampling approach of enterprises or local units (first stage) and employees (second stage).Statistical Population: The SES 2014 statistics refer to enterprises with at least 10 employees in the areas of economic activities defined by NACE Rev. 2 sections B to S excluding O. So we used section K for this analysis.Coverage: The data covers EU-Member States, Turkey, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Montenegro.Years: The data covers the years: 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014. The next wave will be 2018, but the data will be published two years later, probably in 2020.

Link Eurostat SES

Eurofound ERM: Eurofound is the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. They have set up the European Restructuring Monitor (ERM). Since 2002, the European Restructuring Monitor (ERM) has been monitoring the employment impact of large-scale restructuring events in Europe and now covers the 28 EU Member States plus Norway. The ERM offers a searchable database of restructuring events based on announcements in national media sources. Detailed information is available on this site about the data collection method, the media sources used, available information and data limitations. Created in 2002, it has recorded more than 22.000 restructuring events to date. It is updated daily.There is a limitation of the source as only published events are collected in the database.

Link Eurofound ERM

EY / EBB (European Banking Barometer): The European Banking Barometer provides an overview of the macroeconomic outlook and its impact on the European banking industry, as well as the priorities banks will focus on over the next 12 months. Started in 2013, the survey consists now of 250interviews with senior bankers across 12 markets: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland*, Italy, the Netherlands, the Nordics, Poland, Spain, Switzerland and the UK.The fieldwork for study 2016 was conducted via an online questionnaire and telephone interviews during November and December 2015. Respondents were interviewed from a range of financial institutions covering at least 50% of banking assets in each market. A range of bank types were interviewed in each market to help ensure the study was a fair reflection of each country’s banking industry. Interviews were not conducted with subsidiaries of member or group banks.

Link EY / EBB 2016

ECB: European Central Bank: The ECB produces statistics on monetary and financial indicators. Data is collected by the national central banks in each country and then send to the ECB. Statistics are harmonized by the ECB. We used data from the ECB about banking employees and bank branches as well as a publication from Eurofound, referring to ECB sources.

Link ECB: bank branches

Link Eurofound: bank branches

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_labour_force_survey

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/earn_ses2014_esms.htm

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/de/observatories/emcc/european-restructuring-monitor

http://www.ey.com/gl/en/industries/financial-services/banking---capital-markets/ey-european-banking-barometer-2016

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2017/html/ecb.pr170530.en.html

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2011/labour-market-industrial-relations/recession-and-social-dialogue-in-the-banking-sector-a-global-perspective

ESP Members Questionnaire: In Fall 2017 (Oct-Dec), the members of the European Social Partners (ESP) of the Banking industry (EBF, EACB, ESBG and UNI) were asked to provide employee figures with splits for their specific country, as far as they have them available. The data was filled in an Excel questionnaire and analysed by Kantar Live. The sources of these data differ, as each country persues different emphasis concerning their employee statistics.Results are provided adjacent the figures originating from international sources such as Eurostat and Eurofound.

Link: ESP Members Questionnaire

ESP Expert interviews: In February 2018 Kantar conducted short interviews among banking experts in 5 major European countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland) about the reasons for internal restructuring and indications in which areas an increase or decrease of headcount has taken place in the last 10 years and is to be expected in the next 10 years.The experts were selected by the European Social Partners.

Link: ESP Expert Interviews Questionnaire

Back to content

Definitions:

ISCO-Level

1

2

3

4

5

9

Service and sales workers Provide personal and protective services related to catering, housekeeping and other sectors (e.g. Cooks and Waiters in Canteens, Cleaning and Housekeeping Supervisors in Offices, Building Caretaker, Valet Service, Call Centre Salespersons, Security Guards)

Elementary occupations Involve the performance of simple and routine tasks which may require the use of hand-held tools and considerable physical effort, for example performing basic maintenance in offices (e.g. Cleaners and Helpers)

Professionals In the areas of Business, Finance, Administration and ICT perform analytical, conceptual and practical tasks to provide services in financial matters or develop and maintain information systems, (e.g. Accountants, Financial Advisors and Analysts, Database and Network Professionals)

Technicians and associate professionals

In the areas of Business, Finance, Administration and ICT perform technical tasks relating to financial accounting and transaction matters (e.g. Sales and Purchasing Agents, Securities and Finance Dealers and Brokers, Credit and Loans Officers, Accounting Associate Professionals, Office Supervisors)

Clerical support workers Record, organize, store, compute and retrieve information, and perform a number of clerical duties in connection with money-handling operations and other internal services (e.g. General Office Clerks and Secretaries, Data Entry Clerks, Customer Services Clerks, Bank Teller, Contact Centre Information Clerks)

Occupation Description and Examples

Executives / Managers

Chief Executives, Executive Officers, Managing Directors (essentially Board or corresponding functions in enterprises with different legal entity). Business Services and Administration Managers (e.g. Finance and HR Managers, Policy Services and Planning Manager), Sales, Marketing and Development Managers. Financial Services Branch Managers. Information and Communications Technology Services Managers.

Nace-Code 64: Eurostat NACE 64 Definition:Financial services activities, except insurances and pension funding, it includes:64.1 Monetary intermediation incl. central banking64.2 Activities of holding companies64.3 Trusts, funds and similar financial entities64.9 Other financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding

Eurostat Section K: Financial and Insurance ActivitiesThis section includes financial service activities, including insurance, reinsurance and pension funding activities and activities to support financial services. This section also includes the activities of holding assets, such as activities of holding companies and the activities of trusts, funds and similar financial entities.This includes NACE-Code 64 (see above) and NACE-Code 65: Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security

ISCO: The International Standard Classification of Occupations. (ISCO-08) The International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) is one of the main international classifications for which ILO (International Labor Organization) is responsible. It belongs to the international family of economic and social classifications. ISCO is a tool for organizing jobs into a clearly defined set of groups according to the tasks and duties undertaken in the job.The first version of ISCO was adopted in 1957. It has been updated in 1968, 1988 and recently in 2008, called ISCO-08.ISCO is used by Eurostat-LFS. For the requirements of this survey an analysis was only possible on the first ISCO level as we needed a combination with the NACE-Code. These are the restrictions of Eurostat. Useful for the banking sector are the following "major groups". In the analysis, we focused on "executives" (ISCO = 1) in comparison to "other employees" (ISCO: 2,3,4 and 9).

ISCO classification: (See further details below)1 Executives, Senior Officials and Managers 2 Professionals 3 Technicians and Associate Professionals 4 Clerks 9 Elementary occupations

ISCED: The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) belongs to the United Nations International Family of Economic and Social Classifications, which are applied in statistics worldwide with the purpose of assembling, compiling and analysing cross-nationally comparable data. ISCED is the reference classification for organizing education programmes and related qualifications by education levels and fields. ISCED is a product of international agreement and adopted formally by the General Conference of UNESCO Member States. To simplify the comparison in the EU member states, the Eurostat LFS combines the 8 ISCED-levels to only 3 named low, medium and high.

ISCED classification:Low: Less than primary, primary and lower secondary education (ISCED 2011 levels 0-2), which means up to 10 years of school education with any kind of degree. ISCED 1: Primary education ISCED 2: Lower secondary educationMedium: Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (ISCED 2011 levels 3-4), which means residual category in between low and high.ISCED 3: Upper secondary education ISCED 4: Post-secondary non-tertiary educationHigh: Tertiary education (ISCED 2011 levels 5-8), which means any form of university education with a degree as described below or advanced vocational training with a high level degree such as a master craftsmen.ISCED 5: Short-cycle tertiary education ISCED 6: Bachelor’s or equivalent level ISCED 7: Master’s or equivalent level ISCED 8: Doctoral or equivalent level.

ISCED is used by Eurostat LFS and therefore used in this survey for the question "level of education".The European Qualification Framework (EQF) acts as a translation device to make national qualifications more readable across Europe. EQF and ISCED-levels can be matched, please see matching table with samples below.

Link: Complete ISCED-levels

Full-time / Part-Time Work:Part-time: Working less than customary or standard hours.

Permanent / Temporary Work:“Temporary” means a limited duration of employment contract .“Permanent” means an unlimited duration of employment contract.

Fixed / Variable PayFixed pay is defined as guaranteed monthly paid salaries and wages. Variable pay is not guaranteed, not monthly (e.g. at the end of the year) such as bonuses, allowances and allowances in kind, which is connected to performance of the employee, the unit or the company.

ISCED / EQF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Doctoral or equivalent levelKnowledge at the most advanced frontier of a field of work or study and at the interface between fields

UK: RQF level 8. Doctorate, PhD, Professional Doctorate

Bachelor’s or equivalent level Advanced knowledge of a field of work or study, involving a critical understanding of theories and principles

UK: RQF level 6, Bachelor's degree with honours, Bachelor's Degree without honours, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma; Germany: Vocational university German State-certified Engineer, Advanced Vocational programmes (more than 3 years)

Diploma, Master’s or equivalent level

Highly specialised knowledge, some of which is at the forefront of knowledge in a field of work or study, as the basis for original thinking and/or research. Critical awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the interface between different fields

UK: RQF level 7; Master's degree, Postgraduate Certificate, Postgraduate Diploma, Germany: Vocational university (Fachhochschule) Master's, Geprüfter Betriebswirt (IHK) (Certified Business Administrator)

Post-secondary non-tertiary education

Factual and theoretical knowledge in broad contexts within a field of work or study

UK: RQF level 4, HNC, Certificate of Higher Education (e.g. after 1 year of University) Germany: e.g. Berufsschule, Berufsfachschule (vocational schools), entrance qualification second cycle for University and Fachhochschule etc.)

Short-cycle tertiary education

Comprehensive, specialised, factual and theoretical knowledge within a field of work or study and an awareness of the boundaries of that knowledge

UK: RQF levels 5, Higher National Diploma (HND), Diploma of Higher Education (after 2 years of university), Germany: Master Craftsmen programmes at trade and technical schools (short: less than 3 years); Meister

Lower Secondary EducationBasic factual knowledge of a field of work or study

UK: RQF level 2, GCSE Grades A-C, Lower secondary school, Germany: e.g. mittlere Reife (up to 9 or 10 years of school)

Upper secondary education Knowledge of facts, principles, processes and general concepts, in a field of work or study

UK: RQF level 3, A-levels; International Baccalaureate; Germany: Abitur, Austria: Matura, vocational school (up to 12 or 13 years of school)

Degree Knowledge Example

Primary education Basic general knowledgeUK: RQF Level 1, GCSE Grades D-G, primary school; Germany: Grundschule (4 years of school)

Back to content

1. Presentation of Kantar Live at Final Meeting, 28 June 2018

2. Short version of Presentation of Kantar Live at Final Meeting, 28 June 2018

G:\Employment in Banking_final

presentat

G:\Employment in Banking_final

presentation short

Back to content

1. International Standard Classifications of Occupations (ISCO-08) - Part II

2. International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED)

W:\Projects Active\EU Social Dialogue\Reporting\Interim

W:\Projects Active\EU Social Dialogue\Reporting\Interim

Back to content

1. Questionnaire to ESP members (10/2017 - 12/2017)

2. Questionnaire for ESP expert interviews (02- 03 2018)

G:\Employment in Banking_Quest

ionnaire

G:\Quest_experts_Employment in banking

FINAL REPORT...The presentation of the firm that was awarded the contract to undertake the survey,...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT...The presentation of the firm that was awarded the contract to undertake the survey,...